
A COMMENTARY 

« 

O N 

ACTS OF APOSTLES, 

WITH A 

REVISED VERSION OF THE TEXT. 



BY 

J. W. McGARVEY. 




CINCINNATI: 

WRIGHTSON & CO., PRINTERS. 
1863. 



» 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by 
J. W. McGARVEY, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the U. S. for the Southern District of Ohio. 



6TERE0TYPED AT THE 
FRANKLIN TYPE FOUNDRY, 
CINCINNATI. 



INTRODUCTION. 



It is necessary to the successful study of any literary production, 
that the exact design of the author should be known and kept 
constantly in view. It would be doing great injustice to the author 
of Acts, to suppose that he undertook this work without having 
before him some one leading object, which should serve as the con- 
necting thread of the narrative, and according to which all the 
historic details should take place and form. 

The conjectures of commentators as to what this leading object 
is are various and somewhat conflicting. "The writer's object," 
says Dr. Hackett, "if we are to judge of it from what he has per- 
formed, must have been to furnish a summary history of the origin, 
gradual increase, and extension of the Christian Church, through 
the instrumentality, chiefly, of the Apostles Peter and Paul.""* This 
is rather a statement of what he has performed than of the object 
for which he performed it. The same defect attaches to Dr. Alex- 
ander's conjecture. He says: "The book before us is a special 
history of the planting and extension of the Church, both among 
Jews and Gentiles, by the gradual establishment of radiating cen- 
ters, as sources of influence, at certain salient points throughout a 
large part of the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at 
Rome."f That the history does exhibit these facts is certainly 
true, but that there is behind this a design for the accomplishment 
of which these facts are stated, must be equally true. 

The author's design is equally misunderstood by Bloomfield, and 
others with him, who say that it was "to give an authentic account 
of the communication of the Holy Spirit, and of the miraculous 
powers and supernatural gifts bestowed by the Spirit," and "to es- 
tablish the full claim of the Gentiles to be admitted into the Church 
of Christ. "J It is true that the history establishes the claim of the 
Gentiles to admission into the Church, and also contains an account 
of the descent and work of the Holy Spirit, yet neither of these can 
be regarded as the leading thought around which the contents of 
the volume adjust themselves. 

Mr. Barnes, in the midst of some detached statements upon this 
subject, has approached the true idea in the following character- 
istic remark: "This book is an inspired account of the character 

* Com. on Acts, Int., p. 19. fCom. on Acts, Int., p. 13. 

1 Greek Testament, with English notes, Int. to Acts. 

(3) 



4 



INTRODUCTION. 



of true revivals of religion."* But the true idea is still more nearly 
approached by a writer in Kitto's Encyclopedia, who says: "Per- 
haps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say 
that the design of Luke, in writing Acts, was to supply, by select 
and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of 
that religion which Jesus had died to establish, "f 

It is correctly assumed -by Dr. Hackett, in the words above 
quoted, that we are to judge of a writer's design by what he has 
performed. Bearing in mind the distinction between the work done 
and the design for which it is done, a slight glance at the contents 
of this book will reveal to us a design which has escaped the 
notice of all the above-named writers. 

Much the greater part of Acts may be resolved into a detailed 
history of cases of conversion, and of unsuccessful attempts at the 
conversion of sinners. If we extract from it all cases of this kind, 
with the facts and incidents preparatory to each and immediately 
consequent upon it, we will have exhausted almost the entire con- 
tents of the narrative. All other matters are merely incidental. 
The events of the first chapter were designed to prepare the apos- 
tles for the work of converting men; the gift of the Holy Spirit to 
them and to others was to qualify them for it; the admission of 
the Gentiles was an incident connected with the conversion of Cor- 
nelius, and others after him; the conference, in the fifteenth chapter, 
grew out of these conversions; and the long account of Paul's im- 
prisonment in Jerusalem, Cesarea, and Rome, with his sea-voyage 
and shipwreck, constitute but the connected history of his preaching 
to the mob in Jerusalem, to the Sanhedrim, to Felix, to Festus, to 
Agrippa, and to the Jews and Gentiles in Rome. The episode in 
the twelfth chapter, concerning the persecutions by Herod, and his 
death, is designed to show that, even under such circumstances, 
"the word of God grew and multiplied." All the remainder of the 
history consists, unmistakably, in detailed accounts of conversions. 

Such being the work performed by the author, we may readily 
determine his design by inquiring, Why should any cases of con- 
version be put upon record? Evidently, it was that men might 
know how conversions were effected, and in what they consisted. 
The cases which are recorded represent all the different grades of 
human society; all the different degrees of intellectual and religious 
culture; all the common occupations in life, and all the different 
countries and languages of the then known world. The design of 
this variety is to show the adaptation of the one gospel scheme to 
the conversion of all classes of men. 

The history of a case of conversion necessarily embraces two 
distinct classes of facts: First, the agencies and instrumentalities 
employed in effecting it; second, the changes effected in the indi- .. 
vidual who is the subject of it. In the pursuit of his main design, 
therefore, the author was led to designate specifically all these 
agencies, instrumentalities, and changes. He does so in order that 
his readers may know what agents are employed, and how they 
work; what instrumentalities must be used, and how they are 
* Notes on Acts, Iut. f Article, Acts. 



INTRODUCTION. 



5 



applied; and what changes must take place, in order to the Scrip- 
tural conversion of a sinner. 

The chief agent employed in the conversion of men is the Holy 
"Spirit. It is this fact which led the author to detail so minutely 
the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the various gifts and influences 
by which his work was accomplished. He thus teaches the reader 
what part this divine agent performed in the conversion of sinners, 
and how he performed it. 

Another important agency employed was the personal labor of 
the apostles and inspired evangelists. The manner in which their 
part of the work was performed is carefully described, in order that 
men of every age and country, whose business it is to perform the 
part corresponding to theirs, may learn, from their example, how to 
perform it Scripturally. But Peter and Paul were the chief laborers 
of that generation, and for this reason their names occupy the prom- 
inent position assigned them. 

It is well known that the recital by men of the process of their 
conversion is well calculated both to teach sinners the process 
through which they must struggle in order to conversion, and to 
stimulate them to undertake it. Men are taught more successfully 
and influenced more powerfully by example than by precept. Many 
religious teachers of the present day, having discovered the prac- 
tical workings of this principle in human nature, depend much 
more, in their efforts to convert sinners, upon well-told experiences 
than upon the direct preaching of the Word. The success which 
has attended this policy should admonish us that these experiences 
of conversion recorded in Acts are by no means to be lightly es- 
teemed as instrumentalities for the conversion of the world. They 
possess, indeed, this advantage: that, in contrast with all the con- 
versions of the present day, they were guided by infallible teaching, 
and were selected by infallible wisdom from among thousands of 
others which had occurred, because of their peculiar fitness for a 
place in the inspired record. They have, we may say, twice passed 
the scrutiny of infinite wisdom; for, first, all the conversions which 
occurred under the preaching of inspired men were directed by the 
Holy Spirit; and, second, if any difference existed between those put 
on record and the others, the Holy Spirit, by selecting these few, 
decided in their favor as the best models for subsequent generations. 
If a sinner^ seek salvation according to the model of modern con- 
versions, he may be misled; for his model is fallible at best, and 
may be erroneous; but if he imitate these inspired models, it is im- 
possible for him to be misled, unless the Holy Spirit itself can 
mislead him. Moreover, in so far as any man's supposed conver- 
sion does not accord with these, it must be wrong; in so far as it 
does accord with them, it must be right. 

If it be asked why we may not as well take for our model the 
cases of conversion which occurred under the former dispensation, 
or during the life of Jesus, the answer is obvious. We do not 
live under the law of Moses, or the personal ministry of Jesus, but 
under the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, just previous to his 
ascension, committed the affairs of his kingdom on earth into the 



6 



INTRODUCTION. 



hands of twelve men, to be guided by the Holy Spirit, who de- 
scended shortly after he ascended; and now all that we can know 
of present terms of pardon must be learned through the teaching 
and example of these men. If, then, the conditions of pardon 
under any preceding dispensation be found to differ from those pro- 
pounded in Acts, in all the points of difference the latter, and not 
the former, must be our guide. These are the last, and certainly 
the most elaborately detailed communications of the Divine will 
upon the subject, and belong peculiarly to the new covenant under 
which we live. If God has made them to differ, in any respect, 
from those under the old covenant, he teaches us, by this very dif- 
ference, that he has thus far set aside the old through preference 
for the new. In the following pages it is made a leading object to 
ascertain the exact terms of pardon as taught by the apostles, and 
the precise elements which constitute real conversion to Christ. 

The present is pre-eminently a missionary period of the Church. 
None has been more so, except the age of the apostles. Especially 
is it distinguished by success in the conversion of sinners in pro- 
fessedly Christian lands. Hence, it is a demand of the age that the 
true method of evangelizing the world should be known and read 
of all men. But the true method can be found only in the labors 
of inspired apostles and evangelists, and the record of these labors 
is found only in the book of Acts. A failure to understand and to 
appreciate this book has been, and still is, a most prolific source 
of confusion and error in the popular presentation of the gospel. 
By failing to discover its chief design, sinners are far more frequently 
directed to the Psalms of David for instruction upon the subject of 
conversion than to this book, which was written for this express 
purpose. There is, therefore, no one book in all the Bible to which 
the present generation of Bible readers so much need to have their 
attention specially directed. We have endeavored, in this volume, 
to set forth the labors of these inspired preachers as the true and 
infallible guide of the modern evangelist. 

Another peculiarity of the present age is, the unlimited range 
given to speculations concerning the agency of the Holy Spirit 
in human redemption. A subject into which investigation should 
never have been pushed beyond the simple facts and statements of 
revelation, has thus become a most fruitful source of philosophical 
vagaries and of unbridled fanaticism. Whatever differences may 
appear among the many erroneous theories upon the subject, they 
all agree in the conception of a direct impact of the Spirit of God 
upon the spirit of man, by which the latter is enlightened and 
sanctified. This conception is not only common to them all, but it 
is the fundamental conception in each one of them. Under the 
influence of it, the more contemplative theorist receives new revela- 
tions, or "speaks as he is moved by the Holy Ghost;" the more 
enthusiastic calls for outpourings of the " Holy Spirit and of fire," 
dances, shouts, and falls in spasms; while the transcendentalist, 
receiving still further measures of the Spirit, points out mistakes 
made by the inspired apostles, and exposes defects in the character 
of J esus. 



INTRODUCTION. 



7 



Among the prevailing Protestant sects, a common theory of spir- 
itual influence serves almost as a bond of union. It sometimes 
makes them almost forget the conflicts of past ages, melts down 
the cold barrier of separating creeds, and brings hereditary enemies 
together, to worship, for a time, at a common shrine. It is made 
the standard of orthodoxy; and to him who devoutly swears by it, 
it serves, like charity, to cover a multitude of sins, while to him 
who calls it in question, and contents himself with the very words 
of Scripture, it is a ban of excommunication. A difference on all 
other subjects is tolerated, if there is agreement on this; an agree- 
ment on all other subjects can be no bond of union, if there is a 
difference on this. In public discourse all other topics are made 
subordinate, and even the preaching of Christ, which was the work 
of the apostles, has been supplanted by preaching the Holy Spirit. 

Various as are the conclusions of these theorists, they all have a 
common tendency to disparage the Word of God. Precisely as a 
man learns to depend upon internal admonitions for his religious 
guidance will he feel less dependence upon the written Word. 
Hence it is that the masses of the people, who are under the in- 
fluence of these teachings, are so deplorably ignorant of the Bible. 
To call back the mind of the reader from all such vagaries to the 
revealed facts and simple apostolic statements upon this important 
subject, is another leading object of the following work. We will 
find that the book of Acts presents, in living form and unmis- 
takable simplicity, the work of the Holy Spirit. 

Some sixteen of the twenty-eight chapters of Acts are devoted 
almost exclusively to the labors of the Apostle Paul. Whatever 
can be known of this most heroic and successful of all the apos- 
tles must not only be interesting to every reader, but also highly 
instructive, as an example of faith in Christ in its higher develop- 
ment. Some of the most interesting facts in his history, and those 
which throw the greatest light upon his inner life, are not recorded 
by Luke, but may be gathered from incidental remarks in his own 
epistles. In this obscure position, they must ever escape the notice 
of ordinary readers. It is proposed, in this volume, to give them 
their chronological place in the narrative, thus filling up the blanks 
which Luke's design caused him to leave, and rounding out to some 
fullness and symmetry the portraiture of this noblest of all human 
subjects of Scripture biography. 

We have already assumed, in accordance with the universal 
judgment of competent critics, that Luke is the author of Acts. 
For the evidences on which this judgment is based, I refer the 
reader to works devoted to this department of Scripture study. It 
appears, from his being distinguished by Paul, in Gal. iv: 11-14, 
from those "of the circumcision," that he was a Gentile, but of 
what country is not certainly known. He was a physician by pro- 
fession, and is styled by Paul "the beloved physician."* This 
encomium, together with the fact that he shared with Paul many 
of the labors of his life, was his ever-present companion in his im- 
prisonment, even his only companion in the closing scenes of his 

* Col. iv : 14. 



8 



INTRODUCTION. 



life;* and that we detect his presence or absence in the scenes of 
the narrative only as he uses the pronoun we or they to describe 
the party, are circumstances which indicate a character marked by 
great courage and endurance, yet softened by extreme modesty and 
warm affections. That he was a most enthusiastic admirer of Paul 
is evident both from the devotion with which he clung to his side, 
and from the vividness with which every peculiar expression of 
countenance and gesture of the apostle impressed his memory. He 
frequently records the sweeping motion of the hand with which 
Paul arrested the attention of an audience, and the glance with 
which he fixed his eyes upon the enemies of the truth. Yet, not- 
withstanding this personal admiration, so just is his sense of 
propriety that he never pauses for a moment to express his ad- 
miration for the wonderful developments of character which he 
portrays. In this, however, he but imitates a distinguishing pecul- 
iarity of all the inspired writers. 

The book of Acts embraces a period of about thirty years — from 
the ascension of Christ, A. D. 33, to the end of the second year of 
Paul's imprisonment at Rome, A. D. 63. In the latter part of the 
year 63, or the beginning of 64, while Luke was still with Paul in 
Pome, it is most likely that the work was published. For the his- 
torical connection and chronology of particular events described in 
the work, the reader is referred to the body of the Commentary. 

It was no part of my original design to undertake a revision of 
the English text of Acts, but I hoped that, ere this time, an im- 
proved version of the whole New Testament would be put into the 
hands of the public by the American Bible Union. No final revis- 
ion of Acts, however, having appeared from that Society, or from 
any other source, up to this writing, I am constrained to content 
myself with such a revision of the text as I have been able to 
prepare during the progress of the work. I have aimed to preserve, 
in general, the language of the common version. Where the pro- 
priety of a change would be obvious to the reader of the Greek, or 
depends merely upon taste, no notes are given to justify it. In 
cases where a defense seemed to be needed, the reader will find it, 
either in the body of the work or in foot-notes. I beg the critical 
reader, however, to remember that the revision is designed not for 
general adoption, but simply for the purpose to which it is applied 
in this Commentary, and that, even here, it is a secondary part of 
the undertaking. 

In the execution of the work, I have aimed to make not merely 
a book of reference, but a volume to be read consecutively through, 
witji the interest which belongs to the narrative. In order to this 
end, I have aimed to make prominent the author's connection of 
thought throughout; and, in order to render it the more instructive, 
wherever the text presents important issues connected with the 
great religious questions of the day, I have taken time to elaborate 
the argnment as freely as the space which I had allotted myself 
would admit. 



* 2 Tim. iv : 11. 



COMMENTARY. 



ACTS I: 1, 2. 

1, 2. A narrative of Jesus of Nazareth, designed to convince 
men that he is the Christ, would most naturally begin with his 
birth, and terminate with his ascension to heaven. Such was the 
"former narrative" which Luke had addressed to Theophilue, and 
he alludes to it as such, in introducing his present work: (1) " The 
former narrative I composed, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus 
began both to do and to teach, (2) until the day in which, having given 
commandment through the Holy Spirit to tJie apostles whom he had 
chosen, he was taken up." 

This reference to his former narrative is most appropriate in its 
place, inasmuch as the one now undertaken is based entirely upon 
it. The specific reference to "the day in which, having given com- 
mandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had 
chosen, he was taken up," is still more in point, from the fact that 
all the authority which the apostles had for the labors Luke is 
about to narrate was derived from the commandment given on that 
day. The history of that day furnishes but one commandment then 
given, which was the apostolic commission. In this commission, 
then, Luke locates the starting point of his present narrative. 

If we would appreciate the narrative thus briefly introduced to 
us, we must begin, with the author, by a proper understanding of 
this commission. 

During the personal ministry of Jesus, he authorized no human 
being to announce his Messiahship. On the contrary, whenever he 
discovered a disposition to do so, he uniformly forbade it, and this not 
only to various recipients of his healing power, but to the apostles 
themselves. When Peter made the memorable confession, "Thou 
art the Christ, the son of the living God," we are told that, at the 
close of the conversation, "he charged his disciples that they should 
tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."* Such was his uniform 
injunction on similar occasions. Even when Peter, James, and John 
had witnessed his transfiguration, and heard God himself proclaim 
him his Son, as they came down from the mount, "Jesus charged 
them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man is 
risen from the dead."f 

* Matt, xvi : 20. t Matt, xvii : 9. 

(9) 



10 



ACTS I: 1, 2. 



This stern prohibition, quite surprising to most readers of the 
New Testament, may be accounted for, in part, by a desire to avoid 
that political ferment, which, in the existing state of the public 
mind, might have resulted from a general belief among the Jews 
that he was their Messiah. But there is a much more imperative 
reason for it, found in the mental and moral condition of the disci- 
ples themselves. Their crude conceptions of the Messiahship, their 
gross misconception of the nature of the expected Kingdom, their 
misunderstanding of much that he had taught them, and their im- 
perfect remembrance of that which they had understood, rendered 
them incapable of presenting his claims truthfully, not to say infal- 
libly, to the world. Moreover, their faith had not, as yet, acquired 
the strength necessary to the endurance of privations and persecu- 
tions. While laboring under these defects, they were most wisely 
prohibited from preaching that he was the Christ. 

During the last night he spent on earth, Jesus at length informed 
them that this restriction would soon be removed, and they should 
receive the qualifications necessary to be his witnesses. He says: 
" The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my 
name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your 
remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you."* "I have many 
things to say to you, but you can not bear them now; howbeit 
when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the 
truth."-\ "He shall testify of me, and you also shall testify, because 
you have been with me from the beginning. "J In these words they 
have a promise that they shall testify of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit 
for their guide; but the promise looks to the future for its fulfill- 
ment. 

Finally, "on the day in which he was taken up," he gives them 
the commandment which is to unseal their lips, and authorizes them 
to preach the glad tidings to every creature. Without this com- 
mandment, they could not have dared to teil any man that he was 
the Christ; with it, they are authorized to begin the labors which 
our historian is about to narrate. But even yet there is one restric- 
tion laid upon them; for they have not yet received the promised 
qualifications. "He commanded them that they should not depart 
from Jerusalem; but await the promise of the Father, which you 
have heard from me."|| 

Such was the necessity for the commandment in question, and for 
the limitation which attended it when given. The items of which it 
is composed are not fully stated by either one of the historians, but 
must be collected from the partial statements of Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke. Matthew presents three of them, as follows: "Go dis- 
ciple all nations, immersing them into the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe and do all 
whatsoever I have commanded you."§ Mark presents five items in 
these words: "Go preach the gospel to every creature; he who be- 
lieves and is immersed shall be saved; he who believes not shall be 
condemned."^ Luke simply states that Jesus said, "Thus it behoved 

* John xiv : 26. t John xvi : 12, 13. J John xv : 2fi, 27. 

U Verso 4, below. g Matt, xxviii : 19, 20. Mark xvi: 15, 16. 



ACTS I: 3. 



11 



the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and 
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."* If we combine these 
items, by arranging them in their natural order of succession, we 
will have the commission fully stated. 

The command quoted by Mark, "Preach the gospel to every 
creature," necessarily comes first. The command, " Disciple all 
nations," is next in order; for it is by means of preaching that 
they were to make disciples. But when a man is made a disciple 
he becomes a believer; and Matthew and Mark agree in the state- 
ment that he who believes, or, in Matthew's style, he who is dis- 
cipled, is then to be immersed. Luke, however, says that repentance 
must be preached, and as repentance precedes obedience, we are 
compelled to unite it with faith, as antecedent to immersion. Next 
after immersion comes Mark's statement, "he shall be saved." But 
salvation may be either that which the pardoned sinner now enjoys, 
or that to be enjoyed after the resurrection from the dead: hence 
this term would be ambiguous but for Luke's version of it, who 
quotes that " remission of sins" is to be preached. This limits the 
meaning of the promise to that salvation which consists in remis- 
sion of sins. Next after this comes the command, "teaching them 
to observe and do" what I have commanded you. Finally, they 
were to proclaim that they who believed not, and, consequently, 
complied not with the terms of the commission, should be con- 
demned. In brief, they were commanded to go into all the world, 
and make disciples of all nations by preaching the gospel to every 
creature; to immerse all penitent believers into the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, promising such the 
remission of their sins; then teaching them all their duties and 
privileges, as disciples of Jesus. In the mean time, all were to be 
assured that he who believed not should be condemned. 

Making this commission the starting point of his narrative, Luke 
proceeds, after a few more preliminary observations, to relate the 
manner in which it was executed. This is the key to the whole 
narrative. We will find the apostles adhering strictly to its 
guidance. Their actions will furnish a complete counterpart to the 
items of their commission, and the best exposition of its meaning. 
For the strongest confirmation of the brief exposition just given, we 
refer to the course of the narrative as set forth in the following 
pages. 

3. As our author is about to present the apostles testifying to the 
resurrection of Jesus, he sees proper, in his introduction, to state 
briefly the ground of their qualifications for this testimony. He 
does this in the remainder of the paragraph of which we have al- 
ready quoted a part: (3) " To whom, also, he presented himself alive, 
after his suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during 
forty days, and speaking the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." 
From the concluding chapters of the former narratives, we learn 
more particularly the nature and number of these infallible proofs. 
These, having been fully stated by himself and others, are not here 

* Luke xxiv : 46, 47. 



f 



12 



ACTS I: 4, 5, 6-8. 



repeated. We learn here, however, a fact not there related: that 
the space from the resurrection to the ascension was forty days. 

4, 5. To account for the delay of the apostles in Jerusalem after 
receiving their commission, and to prepare the reader for the scenes 
of the coming Pentecost, the historian next relates a part of the 
conversation which had taken place on the day of the ascension: 
(4) " And being assembled with them, he commanded them not to depart 
from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father. Which you 
have heard from me. (5) For John, indeed, immersed in water; 
but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence." 
The command not to depart from Jerusalem is mistaken, by 
some commentators, for the commandment mentioned above, as 
being given on the day he was taken up. But, in truth, as we 
have already seen, the commission constituted that commandment, 
while this is merely a limitation of the commission, in reference 
to the time and place of beginning. The " promise of the Father" 
which they were to await, is the promise of the Holy Spirit, which 
they had heard from him on the night of the betrayal, and which, 
they now learn, is to be fulfilled by their immersion in the Spirit. 
On this use of the term immersion see the Commentary, 2 : 16-18. 

6-8. We are informed by Matthew that Jesus prefaced the com- 
mission by announcing, " All authority in heaven and on earth is 
given to me." It was, probably, this announcement that led to the 
inquiry which Luke next repeats. Being informed that all au- 
thority was now given to him, the disciples expected to see him 
begin to exercise it in the way they had long anticipated. (6) u Now 
when they were come together, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt thou 
at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? (7) But he said to them, It 
is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has ap- 
pointed in his own authority. (8) But you shall receive power, when 
the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in 
Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost part 
of the earth." 

The question, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom 
to Israel?" indicates two interesting facts: First, that the apostles 
still misconceived the nature of Christ's kingdom; second, that the 
kingdom was not yet established. Both these facts deserve some 
attention at our hands, especially the latter. 

Their misconception consisted in the expectation that Christ 
would re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel, and restore it to 
its ancient glory, under his own personal reign. In his reply, the 
Savior does not undertake to correct this misconception, but leaves 
it as a part of that work of enlightenment yet to be effected by the 
Holy Spirit. 

The time at which the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated is the 
point of transition from the preparatory dispensation, many elements 
of which were but temporary, into the present everlasting dispensa- 
tion, which is to know no change, either of principles or of ordi 
nances, in the course of time. It is necessary to determine this 
point, in order to know what laws and ordinances of the Bible 
belong to the present dispensation. All things enjoined subsequent 



ACTS I: 6, 8. 



13 



to this period are binding upon us as citizens of the kingdom of 
Christ; but nothing enjoined as duty or granted as a privilege, under 
former dispensations, is applicable to us, unless it is specifically ex- 
tended to us. It requires no less divine authority to extend into 
the kingdom of Christ the institutions of the Jewish kingdom than 
it did to establish them at first. This proposition is self-evident. 
To fix, therefore, most definitely this period is a matter of trans- 
cendent importance, and must here have all the space that it 
requires. It is a question of fact, to be determined by positive 
Scripture statements. 

The expression "kingdom of heaven" is used only by Matthew. 
In the connections where he uses this expression, the other three 
historians uniformly say "kingdom of God." This fact shows that 
the two expressions, are equivalent. Explaining the former by the 
latter, we conclude that the "kingdom of heaven" is not heaven, 
but simply a kingdom of God, without regard to locality. This 
kingdom is also called by Christ his own, as the Son of man; for 
he says, " There are some standing here who shall not taste of 
death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."* The 
Apostle Paul also speaks of the "kingdom of God's dear Son,"f 
and says, " He must reign till he has put all enemies under his 
feet. "I 

Of the kingdom of God, then, Jesus is the king : hence the time 
at which he became a king is the time at which "the kingdom of 
Christ and of God"|| began. Furthermore, as it was Jesus, the Son 
of man, who was made king, it is evident that the kingdom could 
not have commenced till after he became the Son of man. This 
consideration at once refutes the theory which dates the beginning 
of the kingdom in the days of Abraham. 

But it is not only Jesus the Son of man, but Jesus who died, 
that was made king. "We see Jesus," says Paul, "who was made 
a little lower than the angels, on account of the suffering of death, 
crowned with glory and honor. "§ It was after his death, and not 
during his natural life, that he was made a king. It is necessary, 
therefore, to reject the other theory, which locates the beginning of 
the kingdom in the days of John the Immerser. 

Finally, it was after his resurrection and his ascension to heaven 
that he was made a king. For Paul says, "Being found in 
fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross; wherefore, God hath highly ex- 
alted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at 
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue 
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
Father. "^[ It is here we are to locate that glorious scene described 
by David and by Paul, in which God said to him, "Sit thou on 
my right hand, till 1 make thine enemies thy footstool."** He 
"sat down on the right hand of the throne of God,"ff and the 
Father said, " Let all the angels of God worship him." At this 



* Matt, xvi : 28. f Co1 i : ** X 1 Cor. xv : 25. || Eph. v : 5. 8 Heb. ii : 9. 

If Phil, ii: 8, 11. **Ps. cx: 1; Heb. i : 13. ffHeb. xii: 2. J J Heb. i: 6. 



14 



ACTS I: 6, 8. 



word, among the gathering and circling hosts of heaven, every 
knee was bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is "Lord 
of lords and King of kings." It was then that the kingdom of 
God was inaugurated in heaven; and it was in immediate anticipa- 
tion of it, with all things in readiness and waiting, that Jesus said 
to his disciples, as he was about to ascend on high, " All authority, 
in heaven and on earth, is given to me " 

Having now fixed the time at which the kingdom was inaugu- 
rated in heaven, we are prepared to inquire when it began to be 
administered on earth. It began, of course, with the first adminis- 
trative act on earth, and this was the sending of the Holy Spirit 
upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. On that occasion, Peter 
says, "This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. 
Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having re- 
ceived from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed 
Jorth this which you now see and hear." "Therefore, let all the 
house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same 
Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ."* This 
event is here assumed as the proof of his exaltation, and the his- 
tory shows it to be the first act of the newly-crowned King which 
took effect on earth. These facts are consistent with no other con- 
clusion than that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated on earth 
on the first Pentecost after his ascension. 

We might assume that the above argument is conclusive, and 
here dismiss the subject, but for some passages of Scripture which 
are supposed to favor a different conclusion. It was said by Jesus, 
"The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the 
kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it."f 
Again: "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you 
shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in 
yourselves, nor will you suffer those who are entering, to go in, "J 
And again: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then is 
the kingdom of God come to you."|j It is argued, from these and 
kindred passages, that the law and the prophets ceased, as author- 
ity, with the beginning of John's ministry; that the kingdom of 
heaven then began, and men were pressing into it, while Scribes 
and Pharisees were striving to keep them from entering it; and 
that Jesus recognizes it as an existing institution, in the remark, 
"Then is the kingdom of God come to you." 

But there are other passages in the gospels which appear to con- 
flict with these, and are inconsistent with this conclusion. The 
constant preaching of John, of Jesus, and of the Seventy, was, 
"The kingdom of heaven is at hand;" qyyiKe, " is near." Jesus ex- 
claims, "Among them who are born of women there hath not 
arisen a greater than John the Immerser; notwithstanding, he that 
is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."g Again : 
" There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till 
they see the kingdom of God."^[ And, finally, the question we are 
now considering, " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom 

* Acts ii : 32-36. f Luke xvi : 16. J Matt, xxiii : 13. R Matt, xii : 28. 

I Matt, xi : 11. \ Luke ix : 27. 



ACTS I: 6-8. 



15 



to Israel?" It is evident, from these passages, first, that John was 
not in the kingdom, for otherwise the least in the kingdom could 
not be greater than he; second, that the generation then living were 
yet to see the kingdom of God; third, that the disciples themselves 
were still looking for it in the future. If it be urged, in reference 
to the first of these conclusions, that the kingdom, of which John 
was not a citizen, is the kingdom in its future glory, the assumption 
is refuted by the very next verse in the context: "From the days 
of John the Immerser till now the kingdom of heaven suffers vio- 
lence, and the violent take it by force."* Whatever may be the 
true interpretation of these rather obscure words, they certainly can 
not refer to the kingdom of glory. 

Now, no hypothesis upon this subject can be accepted which 
does not provide for a complete reconciliation of these apparently 
conflicting passages of Scripture. The hypothesis that the kingdom 
was inaugurated by John can not do so; for, in that -case, it is in- 
conceivable that John himself was not a member of it, and equally 
so that he should constantly preach, u The kingdom of heaven is 
neai\" Again : if it was inaugurated during the personal ministry 
of Jesus, it is unaccountable that he should state, as a startling 
fact, that some of those present with him should live to see it, or 
that the disciples themselves should be ignorant of its existence. 
This hypothesis, therefore, is incapable of reconciling the various 
statements on the subject, and must, for this reason, be dismissed. 

On the other hand, if we admit, according to the irresistible force 
of the facts first adduced in this inquiry, that the kingdom was 
inaugurated in heaven when Jesus was coronated, and that it began 
to be formally administered on earth on the next succeeding Pente- 
cost, there is no difficulty in fully reconciling all the passages quoted 
above. It was necessary to the existence of the kingdom on earth 
not only that the king should be upon his throne, but that he 
should have earthly subjects. In order, however, that men should 
acknowledge themselves his subjects the moment that he became 
their king, it was necessary that they should be previously prepared 
for allegiance. This preparation could be made in no other way 
than by inducing men, in advance, to adopt the principles involved 
in the government, and to acknowledge the right of the proposed 
ruler to become their king. This was the work of John and of 
Jesus. When men began, under the influence of their teaching, to 
undergo this preparation, they were, with all propriety of speech, 
said to be pressing into the kingdom of God. Those who opposed 
them were striving to keep them from entering the kingdom ; and 
to both parties it could be said, " The kingdom of God is come to 
you." It had come to them in the influence of its principles. 
u From the days of John the Immerser the kingdom of heaven 
was preached," not as an existing/ institution, but in its elementary 
principles, and by asserting the pretensions of the prospective king. 
Thus, we find that the various statements in the gospels upon this 
subject, when harmonized in the only way of which they are capa- 



* Mutt, xi : 12. 



1G 



ACTS I : 6-8. 



ble, lead us back to our former conclusion, with increased confidence 
in its correctness. 

We may pursue the same inquiry in an indirect method, by de- 
termining when the previous kingdom of God among the Jews 
terminated. As they both, with their conflicting peculiarities, could 
not be in formal existence among the same people at the same 
time, the new one could not begin till the old one terminated. 
That the law and prophets were until John, J esus declares ; but he 
does not declare that they continued no longer. On the contrary, 
he was himself " a minister of the circumcision,"* and kept the law 
till his death. The law and the prophets were, until John, the only 
revelation from God. Since then the gospel of the coming kingdom 
was preached in addition to it, and was designed to fulfill the law 
and the prophets by preparing the people for a " better covenant," 
Even the sacrifices of the altar, however, continued, with the sanc- 
tion of Jesus* up to the very moment that he expired on the cross. 
Then " the vail of the temple was rent in two from the top to 
the bottom," indicating the end of that dispensation. All the sac- 
rifices being then fulfilled in him, and a new and living way being 
consecrated for us, not under the vail, as the high priest had gone, 
but through the vail — that is to say, his fleshf — he put an end to 
the priesthood of Aaron,J and took out of the way the handwriting 
of ordinances, nailing it to his cross. || At the death of Christ, 
therefore, the old kingdom came to its legal end, and on the next 
Pentecost the new kingdom began. 

Eegarding this, now, as a settled conclusion, we proceed to con- 
sider, briefly, the Savior's answer to the question which has detained 
us so long. He said to them, " It is not for you to know the times 
or the seasons which God has appointed in his own authority." By 
the expression " in his own authority," I suppose he intended to 
indicate that the times and seasons of God's purposes are reserved 
more specially under his own sovereign control, and kept back more 
carefully from the knowledge of men, than the purposes themselves. 
It is characteristic of prophesy that it deals much more in facts 
and the succession of events than in definite dates and periods. 
The apostles were to be agents in inaugurating the kingdom, but, 
as proper preparation for their work did not depend upon a fore- 
knowledge of the time, it was not important to reveal it to them. 

But it was all-important that they should receive the necessary 
power: hence Jesus adds, "But you shall receive power, when the 
Holy Spirit comes upon you." The power here promised is not 
authority, for this he had given them in the commission ; but it is 
that miraculous power to know all the truth, and work miracles in 
proof of their mission, which he had promised them before his death. 
He says to them, virtually, It is not for you to know the time at 
which I will establish my kingdom, but you shall receive power to 
inaugurate it on earth when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. This 
is an additional proof that the kingdom was inaugurated on the day 
of Pentecost. 

While promising them the requisite power, Jesus takes occasion 
* Bom. xv : 8. | Heb - x : 20. \ Ileb. vii : 11, 12. | Col. ii : 14. 



ACTS I: 9. 



17 



to mark. out their successive fields of labor: first "in Jerusalem," 
next, "in all Judea," then "in Samaria," and finally, "to the utter- 
most part of the earth." It is not to be imagined that this arrange- 
ment of their labors was dictated by partiality for the Jews, or was 
merely designed to fulfill prophesy. It was rather foretold through 
the prophets, because there were good reasons why it should be so. 
One reason, suggested by the commentators generally, for beginning 
in Jerusalem, was the propriety of first vindicating the claims of 
Jesus in the same city in which he was condemned. But the con- 
trolling reason was doubtless this: the most devout portion of the 
Jewish people, that portion who had been most influenced by the 
preparatory preaching of John and of Jesus, were always collected 
at the great annual festivals, and hence the most successful begin- 
ning could there be made. Next to these, the inhabitants of the 
rural districts of Judea were best prepared, by the same influences, 
for the gospel ; then the Samaritans, who had seen some of the mir- 
acles of Jesus; and, last of all, the Gentiles. Thus the rule of suc- 
cess was made their guide from place to place, and it became the 
custom of the apostles, even in heathen lands, to preach the gospel 
" first to the Jew" and "then to the Gentile." The result fully jus- 
tified the rule; for the most signal triumph of the gospel was in 
Judea, and the most successful approach to the Gentiles of every 
region was through the Jewish synagogue. 

9. Having now completed his brief notice of the last interview 
between Jesus and the disciples, Luke says, (9) "And when he had 
spoken these things, while they were beholding, he was taken up, and a 
cloud received him out of their sight." We learn, from Luke's former 
narrative, that it was while Jesus was in the act of blessing them, 
with uplifted hands, that he was parted from them and borne aloft 
into heaven.* The cloud which floated above formed a back- 
ground, to render the outline of his person more distinct while in 
view, and to suddenly shut him off from view as he entered its 
bosom. Thus all the circumstances of this most fitting departure 
were calculated to preclude the suspicion of deception or of optical 
illusion. 

It has been urged by some skeptical writers, that the silence of 
Matthew and John, in reference to the ascension, who were eye- 
witnesses of the scene, if it really occurred, while it is mentioned 
only by Luke and Mark, who were not present, is ground for sus- 
picion that the latter derived their information from impure sources. 
Even Olshausen acknowledges that, at one time, he was disquieted 
on this point, because he could not account for this peculiar differ- 
ence in the course of the four historians, f That the testimony of 
Mark and Luke, however, is credible, is made apparent to all who 
believe in the resurrection of Jesus, by simply inquiring, what became 
of his body after it was raised? It was certainly raised immortal 
and incorruptible. There is nothing in his resurrection to distin- 
guish it from that of Lazarus, or the widow's son of Nain, so that 
he should be called "the first fruits of them who slept," J but the 
fact that he rose to die no more. But when he was about to leave 



* Luke xxiv : 50, 51. 

2 



| Com. in loco. 



X 1 Cor. xt : 20. 



IS 



ACTS I: 10, 11. 



the earth, there was only this alternative, that his body should re- 
turn again to the grave, or ascend up into heaven. So far, there- 
fore, is the account of the ascension from being incredible, that even 
if none of the historians had mentioned it, we would still be con- 
strained to conclude that, at some time, and in some manner, it did 
take place. 

We may further observe, that though Matthew and John do not 
mention the ascension, the latter reports a conversation with Mary 
the Magdalene at the sepulcher, in which Jesus clearly intimated 
that it would take place. He said to her, " Touch me not; for I am 
not yet ascended to my Father."* And that his ascension would be 
visible, he had intimated to the disciples, when he said, " Doth this 
offend you ? What if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where 
he was before ?"f 

But still the question recurs, why should Matthew and John omit 
an account of this remarkable event, and why should Luke and 
Mark, who were not eye-witnesses, make mention of it ? It would 
be sufficient to answer, For a similar reason, no doubt, to that 
which led each of these writers to omit some interesting facts which 
are mentioned by others. 

But we may find a still more definite answer by examining the 
last chapter of each of the four gospels. It will be observed, that 
John saw fit to close his narrative with the fishing scene which 
occurred on the shore of Galilee, making no mention at all of the 
last day's interview. Of course, it would have required a departure 
from this plan to have mentioned the ascension. Matthew brings 
his narrative to a close with the scene on a mountain in Galilee, 
whereas the ascension took place from Mount Olivet, near Jerusa- 
lem. There was nothing in his closing remarks to suggest mention 
of the ascension, unless it be his account of the commission; but 
the commission was really first given to them at that time,J though 
finally repeated on the day of the ascension. || On the other hand, 
Mark and Luke both choose, for their concluding paragraphs, such 
a series of events as leads them to speak of the last day's interview; 
and as the ascension was the closing event of the day, it would 
have been most unnatural for them not to mention it. Still fur- 
ther, in the introduction to the book of Acts, the leading events 
of which are to have constant reference to an ascended and glorified 
Redeemer, Luke felt still greater necessity for giving a formal ac- 
count of the ascension. 

10, 11. -Not only the ascension of Jesus to heaven, but his future 
coming to judgment, is to be a prominent topic in the coming nar- 
rative, hence the introduction here of another fact, which not even 
Luke had mentioned before. (10) " And while they were gazing into 
heaven, as he went aivay, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 
(11) who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? 
This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, 
in the same mcmner that you have seen him going into heaven." These 
"two men in white apparel" were, undoubtedly, angels in human 
form. This is the natural conclusion from the words they utter, and 



* John xx : 17. f John vi : 62. % Matt, xxviii : 1C-18. | Mark xvi : 14-19. 



ACTS I: 12-14 



10 



is confirmed by the fact that two others who appeared at the sepul- 
cher, and are called "men in shining garments" by Luke,* are 
called "two angels in white" by John.f Luke speaks of them ac- 
cording to their appearance; John, according to the reality. 

It should be observed that the angels stated not merely that Jesus 
would come again, but that he would come in like wanner as they 
had seen him go; that is, visibly and in his glorified humanity. It 
is a positive announcement of a literal and visible second coining. 

12. At the rebuke of the angel, the disciples withdrew their long- 
ing gaze from the cloud into which Jesus had entered, and, cheered 
by the promise of his return, (12) " Then they returned into Jerusa- 
lem from the Mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, distant a 
Sabbath-day s journey." The ascension took place near Bethany,^ 
which was nearly two miles from Jerusalem, || and on the further 
side of Mount Olivet. It was the nearer side of the Mount, which 
was distant a Sabbath-day's journey, or seven-eighths of a mile. 
We learn, from Luke's former narrative, that they returned to Jeru- 
salem "with great joy."§ Their sorrow at parting from the Lord 
was turned into joy at the hope of seeing him again. 

13. " And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, 
where were abiding Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip 
and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alpheus, and 
Simon Zelotes, and Judas brother of James." This enumeration of 
the apostles very appropriately finds place here, showing that all of 
those to whom the commission was given were at their post, ready 
to begin their work, and waiting for the promised power from on 
high. 

14. The manner in which these men spent the time of their 
waiting, which was an interval of ten days, was such as we would 
expect: (14) " These all continued with one accord in prayer and 
supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with 
his brothers." The chief scene of this worship was not the upper 
room where the eleven were abiding, but the temple; for we learn, 
from Luke's former narrative, that they "were continually in the 
temple, praising and blessing God."^[ 

The mother of Jesus is here mentioned for the last time in New 
Testament history. The fact that she still remained with the disci- 
ples, instead of returning to Nazareth, indicates that John was faith- 
ful to the dying request of Jesus, and continued to treat her as his 
own mother.** Though the prominence here given to her name 
shows that she was regarded with great respect by the apostles, the 
manner in which Luke speaks of her shows that he had not dreamed 
of the worship which was yet to be offered to her by an idolatrous 
church. 

Whether those here called the "brothers" of Jesus were the sons 
of Mary, or more distant relatives of Jesus, is not easily determined, 
from the fact that the Greek word is ambiguous. The Catholic 
dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is dependent upon the 
solution of this question, but it properly belongs to commentaries 



* Luke xxiv : 4. f John xx : 12. % Luke xxiv : 50. || John xi : 18. 

g Luke xxiv : 52. Luke xxiv : 53. ** Johu xix : 26, 27. 



20 



ACTS 1 : 15-18. 



on the gospels, and to these the reader is referred for the argu> 
ments, pro and con. 

15-] 8. We next have an account of the selection of an apostle 
to fill the place of Judas. There is no intimation that Jesus had 
authorized this procedure; on the contrary, it would be presumed 
that, as he himself had selected the original twelve, he would, in 
like manner, fill the vacancy, if he intended that it should be filled. 
Neither had the apostles yet received that power from on high 
which would enable them to act infallibly in a matter of this kind. 
From these considerations, it has been supposed by some that the 
whole procedure was both unauthorized and invalid. But the fact 
that Matthias was afterward " numbered with the eleven apostles,"* 
and that the whole body were from thai time called "the twelve,"f 
shows that the transaction was sanctioned by the apostles even after 
they were fully inspired. This gave it the sanction of inspired au- 
thority, whatever may have been its origin. Moreover, Jesus had 
promised them that they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel,^ and the fulfillment of this promise required 
that the number should be filled up. The Apostle Paul was not 
reckoned among "the twelve." He distinguishes himself from them 
in 1 Cor. xv: 5, 8: "He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve" and 
"he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." 

The particular time within the ten days, at which this selection 
was made, is not designated. The incident is introduced in these 
terms: (15) " And in those days, Peter stood up in the midst of the 
disciples, and said, {the number of the names together was about one 
hundred and twenty,) (16) Brethren, this scripture must needs have been 
fulfilled which the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of David, spoke be- 
fore concerning Judas, who ivas guide to them that seized Jesus. (1*7) For 
he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 
(18) Now this man purchased afield with the reward of iniquity, and fall- 
ing headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed 
out." 

The parenthetical statement that the number of names together 
were about one hundred and twenty is not to be understood as in- 
cluding all who then believed on Jesus, but only those who were 
then and there assembled. Paul states that Jesus was seen, after 
his resurrection, by "above five hundred brethren at once."|j The 
hundred and twenty were, perhaps, all who were then in the city 
of Jerusalem. 

The statement in reference to the fate of Judas is supposed 
by most commentators to be part of a parenthesis thrown in by 
Luke, though some contend that it is part of Peter's speech. § If 
the latter supposition is true, there was no ambiguity in it to the 
original hearers, for they all well knew that the field referred to was 
purchased by the Sanhedrim with money which Judas forced upon 
them, and which was invested in this way because they could find 
no other suitable use for it.^[ Knowing this, they could but under- 
stand Peter as meaning that Judas had indirectly caused the field 

* Acts i : 26. f Acts vi : 2 - X Matt, xix ; 28. 

|| 1 Cor. xv : 6. g Alexander in loco. Matt, xxvii : 3-8. 



ACTS I: 19-21. 



21 



to be purchased. But whether the words are Peter's or Luke's, it 
must be admitted that a reader unacquainted with the facts in the 
case would be misled by them. Luke, however, presumed upon the 
information of his first readers, and that knowledge of the facts 
which they possessed has been transmitted to us by Matthew, so that 
we have as little difficulty as they did in discovering the true meaning 
of the remark. 

As respects the manner of the death of Judas, the common method, 
of reconciling Luke's account with that of Matthew is undoubtedly 
correct. We must suppose them both to be true, and combine the 
separate statements. The whole affair stands thus: "He went out 
and hanged himself;""* and, by the breaking of either the limb on 
which he hung, or the cord, " falling headlong, he burst asunder in 
the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." 

19. The next statement, (19) " And it was known to all the dwellers 
in Jerusalem,, so that that field is called, in their proper tongue, Aceldama, 
that is to say, the field of blood," is undoubtedly a parenthesis by Luke. 
Peter was addressing the very people in whose proper tongue the 
place was called Aceldama, and would not, of course, translate it to 
them. Hence, we can not attribute these words to him. But Luke 
was writing in Greek, and felt called upon to translate Hebrew 
words which he might use into Greek, and the fact that this is done 
here prove the words to be his. 

20. The historian now resumes the report of Peter's speech, which 
he had interrupted by the parenthesis. In the remarks already 
quoted, Peter bases the action which he proposes, not upon any 
commandment of Jesus, but upon a prophesy uttered by David. 
He also states, as the ground for the application of that prophesy 
which he is about to make, the fact that Judas had been numbered 
with them, and had " obtained part of this ministry." He now 
quotes the prophesy alluded to: (20) u For it is written in the book 
of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein.^ 
His office let another tahe. n % 

These two passages from the Psalms, when read in their original 
context, seem to apply to the wicked in general, and there is not the 
slightest indication that David had Judas in prophetic view when 
he uttered them. This is an instance, therefore, of the particular 
application of a general prophetic sentiment. If it be proper that 
the habitation of a wicked man should become desolate, and that 
whatever office he held should be given to another, then it was 
pre-eminently proper that such a crime as that of Judas should be 
thus punished, and that so important an office as that of Judas 
should be filled by a worthy successor. 

21. 22. It is of some moment to observe here that the question on 
which Peter is discoursing has not reference to the original appoint- 
ment of an apostle, but to the selection of a successor to an apostle. 
The qualifications, therefore, which are found necessary to an elec- 
tion, must always be possessed by one who proposes to be a suc- 
cessor to an apostle. He states these qualifications in the next sen- 
tence: (21) " Wherefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the 



*Matt. xxvii: 5. 



f Ph. lxix : 25. 



X Ps. cix ; 8. 



22 



ACTS I: 23-26. 



time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) beginning 
from the immersion of John till the day he was taken up from us, 
must one be made a witness with us of his resurrection." There being 
no other instance in the New Testament of the selection of a suc- 
cessor to an apostle, this is our only scriptural guide upon the sub- 
ject, and, therefore, it is unscriptural for any man to lay claim to 
the office who has not been a companion of Jesus, and a witness 
of his resurrection. The reason for confining the selection to those 
who had accompanied Jesus from the beginning, is because such 
would be the most reliable witnesses to his identity after the resur- 
rection. One less familiar with his person would, ceteris paribus, be 
less perfectly guarded against imposition. Peter, here, like Paul in 
1 Cor. xv, makes the whole value of apostolic testimony depend 
upon ability to prove the resurrection of Jesus. 

23-26. u Thcn they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was 
surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (24) And they prayed, and said, Thou 
Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two 
thou hast chosen (25) to receive the lot of this ministry and apostleship, 
from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own 
place. (26) And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon 
Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles." 

It will be observed that the brethren did not themselves select 
Matthias; but, having first appointed two persons between whom 
the choice. should be made, they prayed the Lord to show which 
one he had chosen, and then cast lots, understanding that the one 
upon whom the lot fell was the Lord's choice. The reason that 
they did not make the selection themselves was evidently because 
they thought proper that the Lord, who had chosen Judas, should 
also choose his successor. If it be inquired why, then, they ven- 
tured to confine the Lord's choice to these two, the most plausible 
answer is that suggested by Dr. Alexander, that, after a careful ex- 
amination of the parties present, these were the only two who pos- 
sessed all the qualifications named by Peter. Whether the selection 
of these two was made by the whole body of the disciples, or by the 
apostles alone, it is unimportant to determine. The case does not, 
as many have supposed, furnish a precedent on the subject of pop- 
ular election of church officers; for the selection of the two persons 
between whom an election was to be made, was not the election 
itself ; and when the election took place, it was made by the Lord, 
and not by the disciples or the apostles. One of them cast or drew 
the lots, but the Lord determined on whom the lot should fall. 

The prayer offered by the apostles on this occasion is a model of 
its kind. They had a single object for which they bowed before the 
Lord, and to the proper presentation of this they confine their words. 
They do not repeat a single thought, neither do they elaborate one 
beyond the point of perspicuity. The question having reference to 
the spiritual as well as the historical characteristics of the two indi- 
viduals, most appropriately do they address the Lord as Kapdwyvoara 
the heart-know er. They do not pray, Show which thou wilt choose, 
or dost choose, as though there was need of reflection with the Lord 
before the choice; but ; "show which one of these two thou hast 



ACTS II: 1. 



23 



chosen." They describe the office they desire the Lord to fill, as 
the "ministry and apostleship from which Judas, by transgression, 
fell, that he might go to his own place." He had been in a place 
of which he had proved himself unworthy, and they have no hesi- 
tation in referring to the fact that he had now gone to his own 
- place. That place is, of course, the place to which hypocrites go 
after death. Here is a simple address to the Lord, beautifully ap- 
propriate to the petition they are about to present; then the petition 
itself concisely expressed, and the prayer is concluded. So brief a 
prayer, on any occasion in this voluble age, would scarcely be rec- 
ognized as a prayer at all, so prone are men to the delusion that 
they will be heard for their much speaking. 

II : 1. Thus far our author has been engaged in preliminary 
statements, which were necessary to the proper introduction of his 
main theme. He has furnished us a list of the eleven apostles, and 
the appointment of the twelfth; rehearsed briefly their qualifications 
as witnesses of the resurrection; informed us that they were in Jeru- 
salem, dwelling in an upper room, but spending the most of their 
time in the temple, and waiting for the promised power to inaugu- 
rate on earth the kingdom of Christ. He now proceeds to give an 
account of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and enters upon the main 
theme of his narrative, (1) " When the day of Pentecost was fully come, 
they were all with one accord in one place." 

The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the Passover. It 
was celebrated, according to the law of Moses, by offering the first 
fruits of the wheat harvest, in the form of two loaves made of fine 
flour,* On account of the seven weeks intervening between it and 
the Passover, it is styled, in the Old Testament, "the feast of weeks." 
But the fact that it occurred on the fiftieth day, gave it, in later 
ages, under the prevalence of the Greek language, the name of Pen- 
tecost, which is a Greek adjective, meaning fiftieth. 

This is one of the three annual festivals at which the law required 
every male Jew of the whole nation to be present.-}- The condemna- 
tion and death of Jesus had occurred during one of these feasts, and 
now, the next universal gathering of the devout -Jews is most wisely 
chosen as the occasion for the vindication of his character and the 
beginning of his kingdom. It is the day on which the law was given 
on Mount Sinai, and henceforth it is to commemorate the giving of a 
better law, founded on better promises. It is remarkable that the 
day of giving the law was celebrated throughout the Jewish ages, 
without one word in the Old Testament to indicate that it was de- 
signed to commemorate that event. In like manner, the day of the 
week on which the Holy Spirit descended has been celebrated from 
that time till this, though no formal reason is given in the New Test- 
ament for its observance. The absence of inspired explanations, 
however, has not left the world in doubt upon the latter subject; 
for the two grand events which occurred on that day — the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit — are of such trans- 
cendent importance, that all minds at once agree in attributing to 
them, and especially to the former, the celebration of the day. 



* Lev. xxiii : 15-17. 



f Ex. xxiii: 14-17. 



24 



ACTS II: 1. 



That we are right in assuming that this Pentecost occurred on the 
first day of the week, there is no room to doubt, though Dr. Hackett 
advocates a different hypothesis. After stating that the Lord was 
crucified on Friday, he says, "The fiftieth day, or Pentecost, (begin- 
ning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the 
Passover,) would occur on the Jewish Sabbath." He seems to 
have forgotten, for the moment, that Friday was "preparation day,"* 
and that Saturday was, therefore, the first day of unleavened 
bread, f According to the law, the count began on "the morrow 
after" this day, which was Sunday. J Counting seven full weeks 
and one day from that time, would throw the fiftieth day, or Pente- 
cost, on Sunday, beginning at six o'clock Saturday evening, and clos- 
ing at the same hour Sunday evening. As certainly as Jesus arose 
on Sunday, he died on Friday; and as certainly as this Friday was 
the preparation day of the Passover, so certainly did the Pentecost 
occur on Sunday. 

Why Luke uses the expression, " When the day of Pentecost was 
fully come," is best explained in this way. The day began with 
sunset, and the first part of it was night, which was unsuited for the 
purpose of these events. The day was not fully come until day- 
light. 

It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke 
to be "all with one accord in one place;" for upon this depends the 
question whether the whole hundred, and twenty disciples, or only 
the twelve apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words are 
almost uniformly referred, by commentators, to the hundred and 
twenty. Any one who will read the first four verses of this chapter, 
noticing the connection of the pronoun "they," which occurs in each 
of them, will see, at a glance, that it has, throughout, the same an- 
tecedent, and, therefore, all the parties said in the first verse to be 
together in one place, are said in the fourth to be filled with the 
Holy Spirit, and to speak in other tongues. The question, then, Who 
were filled with the Holy Spirit? depends upon the reference of the 
pronoun "they" in the statement " They were aH together in one 
place." Those who suppose that the whole hundred and twenty are 
referred to, have to go back to the fifteenth verse of the preceding 
chapter to find the antecedent. But, if we obliterate the unfortu- 
nate separation between the first and second chapters, and take the 
last verse of the former into its connection with the latter, we will 
find the true and obvious antecedent much nearer at hand. It 
would read thus: "The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered 
together with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost 
was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." It is 
indisputable that the antecedent to they is the term apostles; and it 
is merely the division of the text into chapters, severing the close 
grammatical connection of the words, which has hid this most ob- 
vious fact from commentators and readers. The apostles alone, 
therefore, are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. This 
conclusion is not only evident from the context, but it is required 
by the very terms of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit. It 



«"Jobnxix: 31. \ Lev. xxiii : 5-7. Jiev. xxiii: 15. 



ACTS II: 2-4. 



25 



was to the apostles alone, on the night of the betrayal, that Jesus 
had promised the miraculous aid of the Spirit, and to them alone 
he had said, on the day of ascension, "You shall be immersed in the 
Holy Spirit." It involves both a perversion of the text, and a mis- 
conception of the design of the event,* to suppose that the immer- 
sion in the Holy Spirit was shared by the whole hundred and 
twenty. 

2. It was the apostles, then, and they alone, who were assembled 
together; (2) " And suddenly there came a sound out of heaven, as of 
a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sit- 
ting.^ What house this was has been variously conjectured; but 
the supposition of Olshausen, that it was one of the thirty spacious 
rooms around the temple court, described by Josephus and called 
okot, houses, is most agreeable to all the facts. Wherever it was, 
the crowd described below gathered about them, and this required 
more space than any private house would afford, especially the up- 
per room where the apostles had been lodging. 

3, 4. Simultaneous with the sound, (3) " There appeared to them 
tongues, distributed, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. (4) 
And they were all filled with the Holy "Spirit, and began to speak in 
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 11 This is the immer- 
sion in the Holy Spirit which had been promised by Jesus, and for 
which the apostles had been waiting since his ascension. It is 
highly important that we should understand in what it consisted, 
and the necessity for its occurrence. 

There is not, in the New Testament, a definition of the immersion 
in the Holy Spirit, but we have here what is possibly better, a liv- 
ing instance of its occurrence. The historian gives us a distinct 
view of men in the act of being immersed in the Spirit, so that, in 
order to understand it, we have but to look on, and tell what we 
see and hear. We see, then, flaming tongues, like flames of fire, 
distributed so that one rests upon each of the twelve apostles. In 
the clause, "it sat upon each of them," the singular pronoun it is 
used after the plural tongues, to indicate that not all, but only one 
of the tongues sat upon each apostle, the term distributed having 
already suggested the contemplation of them singly. We see this, 
and we hear all the twelve at once speaking in languages to them 
unknown. We see a divine power present with these men, for to 
no other power can we attribute those tongues. We hear the un- 
mistakable effects of a divine power acting upon their minds; for 
no other power could give them an instantaneous knowledge of lan- 
guages which they had never studied. The immersion, therefore, 
consists in their being so filled with the Holy Spirit as to be at- 
tended by a miraculous physical power, and to exercise a miraculous 
intellectual power. If there is any other endowment conferred upon 
them, the historian is silent in reference to it, and we have no right 
to assume it. Their ability to speak in other languages is not an 
effect upon their tongues directly, but merely a result of the hnoivledge 
imparted to them. Neither are we to regard the nature of the sen- 
timents uttered by them as proof of any miraculous moral endow- 

* See below, on verses 3, 4. 

3 



26 



ACTS II: 3, 4. 



merit; for pious sentiments are the only kind which the Spirit of 
God would dictate, and they are such as these men, who had been 
for some time " continually in the temple, praising and blessing 
God,"* and " continuing with one consent in prayer and supplica- 
tion, "f would be expected to utter, if they spoke in public at all. 

We have already said something of the necessity for this event; J 
but, at the risk of some repetition, we must here advert to the sub- 
ject again. What the apostles needed, at this point in their history, 
was not moral courage, or devoutness of spirit; for they had already 
recovered from the alarm produced by the crucifixion, and were now 
boldly entering the temple together every day, and spending their 
whole time in devout worship. Their defects were such as no de- 
gree of courage or of piety could supply. It was povjer that they 
wanted — power to remember all that Jesus had taught them; to 
understand the full meaning of all his words; of his death; of his 
resurrection; to pierce the heavens, and declare with certainty things 
which had transpired there; and to know the whole truth concern- 
ing the will of God and the duty of men. There is only one source 
from which this power could be derived, and this the Savior had 
promised them, when he said, "You shall receive power (dvvafiiv,) 
when the Holy Spirit comes upon you."|| This power they now re- 
ceived, and upon the exercise of it depends the entire authority of 
apostolic teaching. 

But power to establish the kingdom and to proselyte the world 
involved not merely the possession of the miraculous mental power 
above named, but the ability to prove that they did possess it. This 
could best be done by an indisputable exercise of it. To exercise it, 
however, by merely beginning to speak the truth infallibly, would not 
answer the purpose, for men would inquire, How can you assure us 
that this which you speak is the truth ? To answer this question 
satisfactorily, they gave such an exhibition of the superhuman 
knowledge which they • possessed as- could be tested by their hear- 
ers. They might have done this by penetrating the minds of the 
auditors, and declaring to them their secret thoughts or past his- 
tory ; but this would have addressed itself to only one individual at 
a time. Or they might, like the prophets of old, have foretold some 
future event, the occurrence of which would prove their inspiration; 
but this would have required some considerable lapse of time, and 
would not, therefore, have answered the purpose of immediate con- 
viction. There is, indeed, but one method conceivable, by which 
they could exhibit this power to the immediate conviction of a mul- 
titude, and that is the method adopted on this occasion, speaking in 
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. If any man doubts 
this, let him imagine and state, if he can, some other method. True, 
they might have wrought miracles of healing, but this would have 
been no exhibition of miraculous mental endowments. If wrought 
in confirmation of the claim that they were inspired, it would have 
proved it; still, the proof would have been indirect, 'requiring the 
minds of the audience to pass through a course of reasoning before 
reaching the conclusion. The proof, in this case, is direct, being an 

* Luke xxiv : 53. f Acts fo-M*. t Com - i : 2 « II Acts 1 : 8 « 



ACTS II: 5-13. 



27 



exhibition of the power ^bich t'iey claimed. By the only method, 
then, of which we (da conceive, the apostles, as soon as they be- 
came possessed of the promised power, exhibited to the multitude 
an indisputable -2-f/cise of it. 

It should be r.r/yrved, that this exhibition could be available to 
its purpose o r J j v/hen individuals were present who understood the 
languages i r x^ -s. Otherwise, they would have no means of testing 
the reality (a the miiacle. Hence, to serve the purpose of yjroof 
where *.h*f. circumstance did not exist, the apostles were supplied 
■with 4 .p t p'^wer of working physical miracles; and inasmuch as this 
circumstance did not often exist in the course of their ministry, they 
had resort almost uniformly to the indirect method of proof by a 
display of miraculous physical power.- 

5. The circumstances of the present occasion were happily suited 
to this wonderful display of divine power, the like of which had 
never been witnessed, even in the astonishing miracles of Moses 
and of Jesus. (5) " Now there were dvjelling in Jerusalem, Jeios, de- 
vout men, from every nation under heaven." The native tongues of 
these Jews were those of the nations in which they were born, but 
they had also been instructed by their parents in the dialect of 
Judea. This enabled them to understand the, tongues which were 
spoken by the apostles, and to test the reality of the miracle. 

6—12. " And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, 
and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own 
dialect. 1 ' The historian seems here to exhaust his vocabulary of 
terms to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing 
this scene. Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds, 
(7) " And all were amazed, and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, 
are not all these who are speaking, Galileans % (8) And how do we 
hear, each one in our own dialect in which we were born f (9) Partis- 
ans, and Medes, and Elamites, and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea 
and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, (10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, 
Egypt and the parts of Lybia about Cyrene ; and Roman strangers, 
both Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretes and Arabians; we hear them 
speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." Not yet 
satisfied with his attempts to express their feelings, Luke adds, (12) 
"And they were all amazed, and perplexed, saying one to another, 
What does this mean?" . 

13. We have in this last sentence an instance of the peculiar use 
of the term all in the New Testament, to signify the great mass; for, 
after saying that 11 all were amazed," etc., Luke immediately adds, 
(13) " But others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine." 
The wine was not new, as rendered in the common version ; for new 
wine was not intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, 
though by a peculiar process it had been kept sweet.* 

In order that we may discriminate accurately concerning the 
effects of this phenomenon, we must observe that the only effects 
thus far produced upon the multitude, are perplexity and amaze- 
ment among the greater part, and merriment among the few. It 
was impossible that any of them, without an explanation, could un- 

*See Hackett. 



• 

28 



ACTS II: 14-18. 



d erst and the phenomenon; and without being understood, it could 
have no moral or religious effect upon them. It was, indeed, quite 
natural, that some of the audience, to whom most of the languages 
spoken at first sounded like mere gibberish, and who were of too 
trivial a disposition to inquire further into the matter, should exclaim 
that ihe apostles were drunk. This being true of the phenomenon 
while unexplained, it is evident that all the moral power which it 
is to exert upon the multitude must reach, their minds and hearts 
through the words in which the explanation is given. To this ex- 
planation our attention is now directed. 

14, 15. " Then Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice 
and said to them, Men of Judea, and all you who dwell in Jerusalem, 
be this known to you, and hearken to my words: (15) for these men are 
not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." 
After all that has been said of this defense against the charge of 
drunkenness, it must be admitted that it is not conclusive; for men 
might be drunk, as they often were and are, at any hour of either 
day or night. Still, the fact that men are not often found drunk 
so early in the day, rendered the defense sufficiently plausible to ward 
off the present effect of a charge which had been preferred in mere 
levity, while Peter relies upon the speech he is about to make for 
a perfect refutation of the charge, and for an impression upon the 
multitude, of which, they little dreamed. He proceeds to speak in such 
a way as only a sober man could speak, and this is the best way to 
refute a charge of drunkenness. 

16-18. Peter continues: (16) 11 But this is that which was spoken 
through the prophet Joel ; (17) And it shall come to pass in the last 
days, says God, I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh; and 
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall 
see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams : (18) And on my 
men-servants and on my maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out 
from my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." 

From this passage it is evident that the immediate effects of the 
outpouring of the Spirit, so far as the recipients are concerned, are 
mental, and not moral effects. The prophesy contemplates, not a 
miraculous elevation of the moral nature, but an inspiration of the 
mind, by which prophesy, and prophetic dreams and visions would 
be experienced. If the entrance of the Holy Spirit into men, to 
operate by an abstract exertion of divine power, which is certainly 
the nature of the operation here contemplated, was designed to take 
effect immediately upon the heart, it is certainly most unaccounta- 
ble, that neither by the prophet foretelling the event, nor by Luke 
describing it, is one word said in reference to such an effect. On the 
contrary, the only effects foretold by the prophet are dreams, visions, 
and prophesy, and the only one described by the historian is that 
species of prophesy which "consists in speaking in unknown tongues. 
We desire to note such observations as this, wherever the text sug- 
gests them, in order to correct prevailing errors upon this subject. It 
will l>e found the uniform testimony of recorded facts, that the power 
of the Holy Spirit took immediate effect upon the intellectual facul- 
ties, leaving the moral nature of inspired men to the effect of the 



ACTS II: 16-18. 



20 



ideas revealed, in precisely the same manner that the hearts of their 
hearers were affected by the same ideas when uttered by inspired 
lips.* 

It is quite common with pedobaptist writers and speakers to make 
use of the expression, " I will pour out from my Spirit," to prove that 
pouring may be the action of baptism. The substance of the argu- 
ment, as stated by Dr. Alexander, j is as follows : " The extraordinary 
influences of the Holy Spirit are repeatedly described, both in the 
language and the types of the Old Testament, as poured on the re- 
cipient. . . . This effusion is the very thing for which they (the 
apostles) are here told to wait; and therefore, when they heard it 
called a baptism, whatever may have been the primary usage of the 
word, they must have seen its Christian sense to be compatible with 
such an application." That the apostles must have expected some- 
thing to occur, in their reception of the Holy Spirit, to which the 
term baptism would properly apply, is undoubtedly true, for Jesus 
had promised that they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But, 
in the event itself, there are two facts clearly distinguishable, and 
capable of separate consideration : 1st. The coming of the Holy Spirit 
upon them, called an outpouring. 2d. The effect which followed 
this coming. It is important to inquire to which of these the term 
baptism is applied. Dr. Alexander, and those who argue with him, 
assume that it is applied to the former. He says, " This effusion is 
the very thing " which they had "heard called a baptism." If this 
assumption is true, then the conclusion follows, that the baptism con- 
sisted in that movement of the Spirit expressed by the word pour : 
otherwise there would be no ground for the assumption that the 
word pour is used as an equivalent for the word baptize. If- the act 
of pouring, then, was the baptism, most undoubtedly the thing poured 
was the thing baptized ; but it was the Holy Spirit that was poured, 
and not the apostles; hence, the Holy Spirit, and not the apostles, was 
baptized. 

The absurdity of this conclusion drives us back to search for the 
baptism in the effect of the outpouring, rather than in the outpour- 
ing itself. This, indeed, the language of the Savior unquestionably 
requires; for he says, "You shall be baptized." These words express 
an effect of which they were to be the subjects. This effect can not 
be expressed by the term pour, for the apostles were not and could 
not be poured. The effect was to depend upon the coming or pour- 
ing; for Jesus explains the promise, "You shall be baptized in the 
Spirit," by saying, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit 
comes upon you." This is still further proof that it is an effect which 
the outpouring of the Spirit produced, that is called a baptism. But 
if it be said, that, at any rate, we have here a baptism effected by 
pouring, we reply that this very fact proves the baptism and the pour- 
ing to be two different things; and that an immersion may be effected 
by pouring. 

We further remark, that there was no literal pouring in the case; 
for the Holy Spirit is not a liquid, that it might be literally poured. 
The term pour, here, is used metaphorically. In our vague concep- 
* See further on this subject, Com. x : 9, 10. f Com. i ; 5. 



30 



ACTS II: 19, 20. 



tion of the nature of Spirit, there is such an analogy between it and 
a subtile fluid, that the action, which, in the plain style of the Savior, 
is called a coming of the Spirit, may, in the highly figurative style 
of the prophet Joel, be properly styled an outpouring of the Spirit. 
The analogy, therefore, which justifies the use of the word pour, is 
not that between baptism and the act of pouring, but that between 
a subtile fluid and our inadequate conceptions of spirit. 

We now proceed to consider the propriety of styling the effect in 
question an immersion. When Jesus said, "John baptized in water, 
but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit," his words suggested 
an analogy between John's baptism and that of the Spirit. But 
they could not have so far mistaken this analogy as to suppose that 
their bodies were to be subjects of the Spirit baptism, for this is for- 
bidden by the very nature of the case. But they would naturally 
expect that their spirits would be the subjects of the baptism in the 
Spirit, as their .bodies had been of the baptism in water. The event 
corresponded to this expectation; for they were u filled with the Holy 
Spirit;" he pervaded and possessed all their mental powers, so that, 
as Jesus had promised, it was not they that spoke, but the Spirit of 
their Father that spoke in them.* Their spirits were as literally 
and completely immersed in the Holy Spirit, as their bodies had been 
in the waters of Jordan. 

19, 20. So much of Peter's quotation from Joel as we have now 
considered was in process of fulfillment at the time he was speak- 
ing, and is of quite easy interpretation; but not so with the remain- 
ing portion; (19) " And I will show wonders in heaven above, and 
signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky vapor. (20) The 
sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that 
great and illustrious day of the Lord come. (21) And it shall come to 
pass that every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be 
saved." 

It is quite evident that there was nothing transpiring at the time 
of Peter's speech to which the multitude could look as the fulfill- 
ment of these words; hence the remark with which he introduces 
the quotation, " This is that which Was spoken by the prophet Joel," 
is to be understood only of the manifestation of the Hely Spirit. 
The remainder of the prediction must have still, looked to the future 
for its fulfillment. How far in the future is not indicated, except 
that the events mentioned were to take place " before that great and 
illustrious day of the Lord." This day of the Lord is certainly 
spoken of as a day of terror and danger; and no doubt the salva- 
tion contemplated in the words, "every one who will call on the 
name of the Lord shall be saved," is salvation from the dangers of 
"that great and illustrious day." The interpretation of the whole 
passage, therefore, depends upon determining what is meant by that 
day. Is it the day of the destruction of Jerusalem, or of the final 
judgment? The best way to settle this question is to examine the 
use "of the phrase, "day of the Lord," in both Old Testament and 
New. 

In the first eleven verses of the second chapter of J oel, the phrase 

* Matt, x : 20. 



ACTS II: 21. 



31 



" day of the Lord " occurs three times, and designates a time when 
the land should be desolated by locusts, insects, and drought. But 
with the passage now under consideration, in the latter part of the 
same chapter, the prophet begins a new theme, and therefore speaks 
of some other great and terrible day. Throughout the prophesies 
of Joel, and of all the Old Testament prophets, this phrase is used 
invariably to designate a day of disaster. Isaiah calls the time in 
which Babylon was to be destroyed, "the day of the Lord," and 
says of it, " The stars of heaven, and the constellations thereof, shall 
not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, 
and the moon shall not cause her light to shine." *■ Ezekiel, in like 
manner, foretelling the desolation of Egypt, says, "The day of the 
Lord is near; a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen."-}- 
Obadiah uses the same phrase in reference to the destruction of 
Edom;J Amos, in reference to the captivity of Israel: |j and Zecha- 
riah, in reference to the final siege of Jerusalem. § An induction of 
these passages establishes the conclusion that " the day of the Lord," 
with the prophets, is always a day of calamity, the precise nature 
of which is to be determined in each case by the context. In some 
cases the context is so obscure as not to determine the reference 
with certainty. The text before us possesses some of this obscurity, 
yet with the aid of the above remarks, and the use made of the 
passage by Peter, we may determine the reference with no small 
degree of certainty. 

It is evident, from Peter's application of the first part of the 
quotation to the advent of the Spirit, that tlxe latter part, which is 
contemplated as still future, was to be fulfilled after the scene then 
transpiring. Now, if the dangers of the day, as indicated by the 
words employed, were such as concerned the Jews alone, there 
would be good ground to suppose that reference was had to the 
destruction of Jerusalem. But the parties contemplated in the 
prophesy are u all flesh;" therefore, all classes of men are embraced 
in the prophetic view, and the "day of the Lord" must, according 
to Old Testament usage, be a day of terror in which all are inter- 
ested. But in the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews alone had 
any thing to dread; hence this can not be the reference. It must, 
then, be the day of judgment; for this is the only day of pre-emi- 
nent terror yet awaiting all mankind. 

This conclusion is confirmed by the invariable usage of New 
Testament writers. The apostolic writings afford little ground in- 
deed for the prominence that has been given by commentators to 
the destruction of Jerusalem, in their interpretations of prophesy. 
There was another and far different day, in their future, to which 
they gave the appellation, "the day of the Lord." Paul says, "De- 
liver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the 
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." ^ "We are your 
rejoicing, even as ye also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus."** 
"Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a 
thief in the night. "ff "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief 



*Iea. xiii: 9-11. f Ezek. xxx : 3. J Ob. 15. || Amos v : 18. g Zech. xiv : 1. 
f 1 Cor. v : 5. *»2 Cor. i : li. \\ 1 Tbess. v : 2. 



32 



ACTS II: 22, 23. 



in the night." * These are all the occurrences of this expression in 
the New Testament, and they show conclusively that "the day of 
the Lord," with the apostles, was the day of judgment. 

The great and illustrious day must not be confounded with the 
"signs and wonders]" mentioned by the prophet; for these are to 
occur before that day. Whatever may be the exact symbolic mean- 
ing of the "blood and fire, and smoky vapor," and the darkening 
of the sun and moon, they represent events which are to take place 
before the day of judgment. 

Having now determined the reference of the day in question, we 
can at once decide what, salvation is contemplated in the declara- 
tion, "Every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be 
saved." The only salvation connected with the day of judgment is 
the salvation from sin and death. The reference, therefore, is to 
this, and not to salvation from the destruction of Jerusalem. 

This salvation is made to depend upon calling on the name of the 
Lord, an expression equivalent to prayer. It is, of course, acceptable 
prayer which is intended, and it therefore implies the existence of 
that disposition and conduct necessary to acceptable worship. Cer- 
tainly no one calling upon the name of the Lord while persisting 
in disobedience can be included in this promise. 

Thus far, in his discourse, Peter has directed his attention to the 
single object of proving the inspiration of himself and his associates. 
This was logically necessary previous to the utterance of a single 
word by authority, and most logically has he conducted his argu- 
ment. The amazement of the people, upon beholding the miracu- 
lous scene, was a tacit acknowledgment of their inability to account 
for it. They were well prepared, therefore, to hear Peter's explana- 
tion. But if even he had attributed the effects which they witnessed 
to any less than divine power, they must have rejected his explana- 
tion as unsatisfactory. The question with them, indeed, was not, 
whether this was a divine or human manifestation, but, admitting its 
divinity, they asked one another, "What does this meaii?" When, 
therefore, Peter simply declares, that this is a fulfillment of Joel's 
prophesy concerning the outpouring of the Spirit of God, they had 
no alternative but to receive his explanation, while the fact that 
it was a fulfillment of prophesy gave to it additional solemnity. 

If Peter had closed his discourse at this point, the multitude 
would have gone away convinced of his inspiration, but not one 
of them would have been converted. All that has yet been said and 
done is preparatory; a necessary preparation for what is to follow. 
We are yet to search for the exact influence which turned their 
minds and hearts toward Jesus Christ. 

22-24. It is impossible, at this distance of space and time, to 
realize, even in a faint degree, the effect upon minds so wrought up 
and possessed of such facts, produced by the announcement next 
made by Peter. (22) "Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of 
Nazareth, a man approved by God among you, by miracles and won- 
ders and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you 
yourselves also know; (23) him, delivered by the determined purpose 
* 2 Peter iii : 10. 



ACTS II: 24. 



33 



and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands 
have crucified and slain : (24) whom God has raised up, having loosed 
the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held 
under it." Filled with amazement, as they were already, by a visi- 
ble and audible manifestation of the Spirit of God, they now see 
that the whole of this amazing phenomenon is subservient to the 
name of that Nazarene whom they had despised and crucified. 
This conviction is brought home to them, too, in a sentence so 
replete with overwhelming facts, as to make them reel and stagger 
under a succession of fearful blows rapidly repeated. In one breath 
they have heard no less than seven startling propositions: 1st. That 
Jesus had been approved by God among them, by miracles and 
wonders and signs, which God had done by him. 2d. That they, 
themselves, knew this to be so. 3d. That it was not from impotence 
on his part, but in accordance with the purpose and foreknowledge 
of God, that he was yielded up to them. 4th. That when thus 
yielded up they had put him to death by the torture of crucifixion. 
5th. That they had done this with wicked hands. 6th. That God 
had raised him from the dead. 7th. That it was not possible that 
death should hold him. 

Here is a complete epitome of the four gospels, condensed into 
one short sentence. The name "Jesus of Nazareth" brought vividly 
before their minds a well-known personage, and all his illustrious 
history flashes across their memory. The first assertion concerning 
him is an appeal to his miracles as a demonstration that he was 
from God. There is no need of argument to make this demon- 
stration clear; nor of evidence to prove the reality of the miracles; 
for they were done " in your midst, as you yourselves also know. 11 
The fearfulness of the murder is magnified by the thought, that he 
had been voluntarily delivered to them, in accordance with a delib- 
erate purpose of God long ago declared by the prophets. The man- 
ner of his death makes it more fearful still. They had nailed him 
to a cross, and compelled him to die like a felon. These things 
being so, how penetrating the appeal to their consciences, " with 
wicked hands you have crucified and slain him ! " This was no 
time for nice distinctions between what a man does himself, and 
what he does by another. The "wicked hands" are not, as some 
suppose, the hands of Roman soldiers, who had performed the actual 
work of his execution, but the hands of wicked Jews. Here, before 
him, were the very persons who had been assembled but fifty days 
before at the Passover, and had taken a hand in the proceedings of 
that awful day. He appeals to their individual consciousness of 
guilt; and this gives an intensity to the effect of his discourse upon 
their hearts, which it could not otherwise have possessed. Conscious 
of fearful guilt in having thus cruelly murdered the attested servant 
of God ; and suddenly revealed to themselves as actors in the dark- 
est scene of prophetic vision, how shall they endure the additional 
thought, that God has raised the crucified from the dead? Never 
did mortal lips pronounce, in so brief a space, so many thoughts of 
so terrific import to the hearers. We might challenge the world to 
find a parallel to it in the speeches of all her orators, or the songs 



34 



ACTS II : 25-28. 



of all her poets. There is not, indeed, such a thunderbolt in the 
burdens of all the prophets of Israel, nor among the mighty voices 
which echo through the pages of the Apocalypse. It is the first 
-announcement to the world of a risen and glorified Eedeemer. 

25-28. There are two points in this announcement which required 
proof, and to the presentation of this Peter immediately proceeds. 
Having stated that Jesus was delivered according to the determined 
purpose of Grod, he now quotes that purpose as expressed by David 
in the 16th Psalm. (25) "For David says concerning him, I foresaw 
the Lord always before my face; for he is on my right hand, that I 
should not be moved. (26) Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my 
tongue was glad. Moreover, my flesh shall rest in hope ; (27) because 
thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy 
One to see corruption. (28) Thou hast made known to me the ways of 
life; thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance.'' 1 Only so 
much of this quotation as refers to the resurrection suits the special 
purpose of the speaker, the preceding portion serving only to con- 
nectedly introduce it. 

The words, " Thou shalt make known to me the ways of life," con- 
stitute the affirmative assertion of a restoration to life, which had 
been negatively expressed in the statement, " Thou wilt not leave my 
soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corrup- 
tion." The words, "Thou wilt make me full of joy with thy coun- 
tenance," no doubt refer to that joy set before Jesus, for which "he 
endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at the 
right hand of the throne of Crod."* 

It is commonly agreed among interpreters, that in the sentence, 
" Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy 
Holy One to see corruption," there is no distinction intended be- 
tween the -condition of the soul and that of the body; but that the 
whole is merely equivalent to the statement, Thou wilt not leave me 
among the dead. I am constrained, however, to adopt the opinion 
advanced, but not defended, by Olshausen, that the apostle does in- 
tend to fix our attention upon the body and soul of J esus separately. 
The most obvious reason for this opinion is the fact that his body 
and soul are spoken of separately, and with separate reference to 
their respective places of abode during the period of death. The soul 
can not see corruption, neither can the body go into hades; but when 
men die, ordinarily, their bodies see corruption, and their souls enter, 
not the grave, but hades. The words in question declare, in refer- 
ence to both the soul and body of Jesus, that which must have oc- 
curred in his resurrection, that the one was not left in hades, neither 
did the other see corruption. The apostle, in commenting upon 
them, makes the distinction still more marked, by saying, (verse 31, 
below), " He spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should 
not be left in hades, nor his flesh see corruption." Why do both 
the prophet and the apostle so carefully make the distinction, unless 
they wish to fix attention upon it? 

The term hades designates the place of disembodied spirits. It is, 
as its etymology indicates, (a privative ideiv to see) the unseen. The 
* Heb. xii : 2. 



ACTS II: 28. 



35 



Greeks were good at giving names to things. When they watched 
a friend sinking into the arms of death, they could see, by the mo- 
tion of the frame and the light of the eye, the continued 'presence 
of the soul, until at last, the muscles were all motionless, and the 
eye fixed and leaden. They could still see the body, and after it had 
been deposited in the grave they could revisit it and see it again. 
But where is the soul ? You see it no longer. There are no signs of 
its presence. It is gone; and its invisible abode they call hades, the 
unseen. That the soul of Jesus entered hades is undeniable. That 
it returned again to the body at the resurrection is asserted by Peter ; 
and it is this return which was predicted by the prophet, and which 
caused the exultation both of himself and the apostle. 

The resurrection of Jesus is not appreciated by the religious world 
now, as it was by the apostles. As respects the return of his soul 
from hades, Protestant writers have fled so far from the justly-ab- 
horred purgatory of the Catholic, and the gloomy soul-sleeping of the 
Materialist, that they have passed beyond the Scripture doctrine, and 
either ignore altogether the existence of an intermediate state, or 
deny that the souls of the righteous are short of ultimate happiness 
during this period. On the other hand, they have so great a tend- 
ency to absolute spiritualism in their conceptions of the future state, 
that they fail to appreciate the necessity for the resurrection of the 
body of Jesus, or to exult, as the apostles did, in anticipation of the 
resurrection of their own bodies. As long as men entertain the idea 
that their spirits enter into final bliss and glory immediately after 
death, they can never be made to regard the resurrection of the body 
as a matter of importance. This idea has even produced a general 
skepticism among the masses, in reference to a resurrection of the 
body; for men are very apt to doubt the certainty of future events 
for which they see no necessity. As respects the resurrection of the 
body of Jesus, the most popular conception of its necessity is no 
doubt this, that it was merely to comply with the predictions of the 
prophets and of Jesus himself. It would be far more rational to 
suppose that it was made a subject of prophesy, because there was 
some grand necessity that it should occur. 

It would occupy too much space, in a work of this kind, to fully 
develop this subject; we must, therefore, content ourselves with only 
a few observations, the complete vindication of the correctness of 
which we must forego. 

When the eternal Word became flesh, he assumed all the limita- 
tions and dependencies which belong to men ; " for it behooved him 
to be made in all things like his brethren."* One of these limita- 
tions was the inability to work without a body; hence, to him, as 
well as to his brethren, there was a night coming in which he could 
not work. He says, " I must work the works of him who sent me 
while it is day; the night is coming when no man can work."-j- 
This night can not be the period after the resurrection, for then he 
did work. It must, then, be the period of death, while his soul was 
absent from his body. During this period, he himself asserts, he 
could do no work, and certainly neither history nor prophesy refer 
- * Heb. ii : 17. f John ix : 4. 



36 



ACTS IT: 29-31. 



to any work which lie then did. It was the Jewish Sabbath among 
the living, and he observed it with absolute stillness in hades. If 
he had appeared to # his disciples, as angels appear to men, convinc- 
ing them that he was still alive, and could then have gone to heaven 
in his mere spiritual nature, who could say there was any necessity 
for a resurrection of that body in which all his sufferings were en- 
dured, and through which all temptations had reached him? But 
this could not be. Hades was to him a night of inactivity, as it ia 
to all his disciples, though to neither is it a state of unconsciousness. 
If it had continued forever, then the further work of redemption, 
which could only be effected by a mediator in heaven, a Christ on 
the throne, sending down the Holy Spirit, directing the labors of 
men and angels, and finally raising the dead to judgment, would 
have remained undone forever. It was this thought which caused 
the exultation of the apostles, in view of the recovery of his soul 
from the inactivity of hades, and its reunion with the uncorrupted 
and now incorruptible body. 11 He was delivered for our offenses," 
but " was raised again for our justification."* His death was the 
atonement, enabling God to be just in justifying those who believe 
on Jesus; but his resurrection enabled him to enter heaven with his 
own blood, securing eternal redemption for us. The resurrection 
was, therefore, an imperious necessity in his case, and it will be in 
ours ; for not till he comes again will we enter the mansions he ia 
preparing for us, and receive the crown of righteousness which he 
will give to all them who love his appearing. f 

29-31. Having exhibited, in the quotation from David, "the de- 
termined purpose and foreknowledge of God," in reference to th* 
resurrection of Jesus, the apostle, never overlooking the logical ne- 
cessities of his argument, next considers the only objection which his 
hearers would be likely to urge against his prophetic proof. In the 
words quoted, David speaks in the first person, and this might lead 
some to object, that he was speaking of himself, and not of the Mes- 
siah. If, however, it be proved that he did not speak of himself, they 
would readily admit that he spoke in the name of the Christ. X'eter 
proves this, in these words: (29) " Brethren, let me freely speak to you 
of the patriarch David, that he is loth dead and buried, and his sep- 
ulchcr is vnth us to this day. (30) Being a prophet, then, and know- 
ing that God had sworn to him, that from the fruit of his loins he would 
raise up the Christ, according to the flesh, to sit on his thro-.te ; (31) 
foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, thai his soul 
was not left in hades, neither did his flesh see corruption." David's 
own flesh having seen corruption, as they themselves admitted, and 
his soul being still in hades, there was no alternative but to admit 
that he spoke of the Messiah. This brief argument not only refuted 
the supposed objection, but opened the minds of his hearers to an 
entirely new conception of the prophetic throne of David, and of the 
Messiah who was to occupy it; showing, that instead of being the 
ruler of an earthly kingdom, however glorious, he was to sit upon 
the throne of the whole universe. 

32, 33. Thus far in his argument, the speaker has proved that the 

* Rom. iv : 25. f J^n xiv : 2, 3 ; 2 Tim. iv ; 8. 



ACTS II: 32-36. 



37 



Messiah must rise from the dead to ascend his throne ; but he haa 
yet to prove that Jesus was thus raised, and was, therefore, the Mes- 
siah of whom David had spoken. He proves the resurrection by the 
testimony of himself and the eleven other witnesses standing with 
him : (32) " This Jesus has God raised up, of which we are all wit- 
nesses." Here were twelve unimpeached witnesses testifying to a 
sensible fact, and presenting their testimony with all the authority 
belonging to miraculously attested messengers- from God. This was 
sufficient, as to the resurrection. But it must also be proved that 
after he arose he ascended to heaven and sat down upon his throne. 
It would be unavailing, for this purpose, to urge the fact that the 
twelve had seen him ascend; for their eyes had followed him no 
further than the cloud which received him out of sight. But he pre- 
sents, in proof, this immersion in the Holy Spirit, which the multi- 
tude were witnessing, and which could be effected by no one beneath 
the throne of Grod. (33) " Therefore, being to the right hand of God 
exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, 
he has shed forth this which you now see and hear." What they then 
saw and heard was both the proof that he who sent it down had 
ascended the throne of heaven, and the assurance that Peter spoke 
by divine authority in declaring this fact. 

34, 35. One more point established, not so much in proof of the 
exaltation of Christ, as to show that it also was a subject of proph- 
esy, and this inimitable argument will be complete. (34) " For 
David has not ascended into the heavens, but he himself says, The 
Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, (35) until I make 
thy foes thy footstool." The Pharisees themselves admitted that in 
this passage David referred to the Messiah, and had been much puz- 
zled by the admission in a memorable conversation with Jesus ; * 
but Peter, unwilling to take any thing as granted, which might after- 
ward be made a ground of objection, carefully guards the applica- 
tion, as he had done that of the previous quotation from David, by 
the remark that David himself had not ascended to heaven; hence 
he could not, in these words, be speaking of himself. This admitted, 
it must be granted that he spoke of the Messiah, for certainly David 
would call no other his Lord. 

36. The progressive advances of his argument being now complete, 
those of them which needed proof being sustained by conclusive 
evidence, and the remainder consisting in facts well known to his 
audience, he announces his final conclusion in these bold and confi- 
dent terms: (36) " Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assur- 
edly, that. God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified 
both Lord and Christ." 

37. It has already been observed, that up to the moment in which 
Peter arose to address the audience, although the immersion in the 
Holy Spirit had occurred, and its effects had been fully witnessed by 
the people, no change had taken place in their minds in reference to 
Jesus Christ, neither did they experience any emotion, except confu- 
sion and amazement at a phenomenon which they could not compre- 
hend. This fact proves, conclusively, that there was no power in the 

*Matt. xxii : 42-6, 



38 



ACTS II: 37. 



miraculous manifestation of the Spirit, which they witnessed, in itself 
alone, to produce in them the desired change. All the power which 
belonged to this event must have come short of the desired effect, 
but for a medium distinct from itself, through which it reached the 
minds and hearts of the people. That medium was the words of 
Peter. He spoke; and when he had announced the conclusion of his 
argument, Luke says: (37) " Now when they heard this, they were 
■pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, Brethren, 
what shall we do 1" In this exclamation there is a manifest confession 
that they believe what Peter has preached to them; and Luke's declar- 
ation that they were pierced to the heart shows that they felt intensely 
the power of the facts which they now believed. Since Peter began to 
speak, therefore, a change has taken place both in their convictions 
and their feelings. They are convinced that Jesus is the Christ, and 
they are pierced to the heart with anguish at the thought of having 
murdered him. In the mean time, not a word is said of any influence 
at work upon them, except that of the words spoken by Peter ; hence 
we conclude that the change in their minds and hearts has been 
effected through those words. This conclusion was also drawn by 
Luke himself; for in saying "when they heard this, they were pierced 
to the heart and cried out," he evidently attributes their emotion and 
their outcry to what they heard, as the cause of both. 

If Luke had regarded the change effected as one which could be 
produced only by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, he could not 
have expressed himself in these words, for his language not only 
entirely ignores such an influence, but attributes the effect to a differ- 
ent instrumentality. We understand him, therefore, to teach that the 
whole change thus far effected in these men was produced through 
the word of truth which they heard from Peter. 

Let it be observed, however, that what they had heard concerning 
Christ, they had heard not as the words of the mere man Peter; for, 
previous to introducing the name of Jesus, he had clearly demon- 
strated the inspiration of himself and the other apostles. This being 
established beyond the possibility of a rational doubt, from the mo- 
ment that he began to speak of Jesus they were listening to him as 
an inspired man. But the Jews had long since learned to ascribe 
to the words of inspired men all the authority of the Spirit who spoke 
through them ; hence this audience realized that all the power to con- 
vince and to move, that the authority of God himself could impart to 
words, belonged to the words of Peter. If they could believe God, 
they must believe the oracles of God which find utterance through 
Peter's lips. They do believe, and they believe because the words they 
hear are recognized as the words of God. Faith, then, comes by hear- 
ing the word of God; and he who hears the admitted word of God, 
must believe, or deny that God speaks the truth. This is true, whether 
the word is heard from the lips of the inspired men who originally 
gave it utterance, or is received through other authentic channels. 
The power by which the word of God produces faith is all derived 
from the fact that it is the word of God. 

No words, whether of men or of God, can effect moral changes in 
the feelings of the hearer, unless they are believed; nor can they when 



ACTS II: 38. 



39 



believed, unless they announce truths or facts calculated to produce 
such change. In the present instance, the facts announced placed 
the hearers in the awful attitude of murderers of the Son of God, who 
was now not only alive again, but seated on the throne of God, with 
all power in his hands, both on earth and in heaven. The belief of 
these facts necessarily filled them with the most intense realization 
of guilt, and the most fearful anticipation of punishment. The for- 
mer of these emotions is expressed by the words of Luke, " They were 
pierced to the heart;" the latter, in their own words, "Brethren, what 
shall ive do?" They had just heard Peter, in the language of Joel, 
epeak of a possible salvation ; and the question, What shall we do ? 
unquestionably means, What shall we do to be saved ? 

38. This is the first time, under the reign of Jesus Christ, that this 
most important of all questions was ever propounded; and the first 
time, of course, that it was ever answered. Whatever may have been 
the true answer under any previous dispensation, or on any previous 
day in the world's history, the answer given by Peter on this day of 
Pentecost, in which the reign of Christ on earth began, is the true and 
infallible answer for all the subjects of his authority in all subsequent 
time. It deserves our most profound attention ; for it announces the 
conditions of pardon for all men who may be found in the same state 
of mind with these inquirers. It is expressed as follows: (38) " Then 
Peter said to them, Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the 
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

That the offer of pardon, made to the world through Jesus Christ, 
is conditional, is denied only by the fatalist. We will not argue this 
point, except as it is involved in the inquiry as to what the condi- 
tions of pardon are. When we ascertain the prescribed conditions of 
pardon, both questions will be settled in settling one. 

Pardon is the chief want of the human soul, in its most favorable 
earthly circumstances. The rebel against God's government, though 
he lay down his arms and become a loyal subject, can have no hope 
of happiness without pardon for the past; while the pardoned peni- 
tent, humbly struggling in the service of God, knows himself still 
guilty of shortcomings, by which he must fail of the final reward, 
unless pardoned again and again. The question as to what are the 
conditions of pardon, therefore, necessarily divides itself into two; one 
having reference to the hitherto-unpardoned sinner, the other to the 
saint who may have fallen into sin. It is the former class who pro- 
pounded the question to Peter, and it is to them alone that the answer 
under consideration was given. We will confine ourselves, in our pres- 
ent remarks, to this branch of the subject, and discuss it only in the 
light of the passage before us. 

If we regard the question of the multitude, What shall we do ? as 
simply a question of duty under their peculiar circumstances, without 
special reference to final results, we learn from the answer that there 
were two things for them to do — Repent, and be immersed. If Peter 
had stopped with these two words, his answer would have been satis- 
factory, in this view of the subject, and it would have been the conclu- 



40 



ACTS II: 38. 



eion of the world, that the duty of a sinner, "pierced to the heart" by 
a sense of guilt, is to repent and be immersed. 

But if we regard their question as having definite reference to the 
salvation of which Peter had already spoken, (verse 21,) and their 
meaning, What shall we do to be saved f then the answer is equally 
definite : it teaches that what a sinner thus affected is to do to be 
saved, is to repent and be immersed. 

From these two observations, the reader perceives, that so far as the 
conditions of salvation from past sins are concerned, the duty of the 
sinner is most definitely taught by the first two words of the answer, 
taken in connection with their question, without entering upon the 
controversy concerning the remainder of the answer. If it had been 
Peter's design merely to give an answer in concise terms, without ex- 
planation, no doubt he would have confined it to these two words, for 
they contain the only commands which he gives. 

But he saw fit to accompany the two commands with suitable ex- 
planations. He qualifies the command to be immersed by the clause, 
" in the name of Jesus Christ," to show that it is under his authority 
that they were to be immersed, and not merely under that of the 
Father, whose authority alone was recognized in John's immersion. 
That we are right in referring the limiting clause, " in the name of 
Jesus Christ," to the command be immersed, and not to the command 
repent, is evident from the fact that it would be incongruous to say, 
" Repent in the name of Jesus Christ." 

Peter further explains the two commands, by stating their specific 
design; by which term we mean the specific blessing which was to 
be expected as the consequence of obedience. It is "for the remission 
of sins," To convince an unbiased mind that this clause depends 
upon both the preceding commands, and expresses their design, it 
would only be necessary to repeat the words, " Repent and be immersed 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." But, inas- 
much as it has suited the purpose of some controversialists to dis- 
pute this proposition, we here give the opinions of two recent repre- 
sentative commentators, who can not be suspected of undue bias in ita 
favor. 

Dr. Alexander (Presbyterian) says, "The whole phrase, to (or to- 
ward) remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the multi- 
tude had reference, and which, therefore, must be contemplated in the 
answer." Again: "The beneficial end to which all this led was the 
remission of sins." 

Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: 
il hg afieoiv djuapriuv, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matt, xxvi: 28; 
Luke iii: 3,) we connect, naturally, with both the preceding verbs. 
This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to 
repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one 
part of it to the exclusion of the other." 

The connection contended for can not be made more apparent by 
argument; it needs only that attention be called to it, in order to be 
perceived by every unbiased mind. It is possible that some doubt 
might arise in reference to the connection of the clause with the term 



ACTS II. 38. 



II 



repent, but one would imagine that its connection with the command 
be immersed could not be doubted, but for the fact that it has been 
disputed. Indeed, some controversialists have felt so great neces- 
sity for denying the last-named connection, as to assume that the 
clause "for the remission of sins" depends exclusively upon the term 
repent, and that the connection of thought is this : " Repent for the 
remission of sins, and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ." It 
is a sufficient refutation of this assumption to remark, that, if Peter 
had intended to say this, he would most certainly have done so : but 
he has said something entirely different ; and this shows that he 
meant something entirely different. If men are permitted, after this 
style, to entirely reconstruct the sentences of inspired apostles, then 
there is no statement in the Word of God which may not be per- 
verted. We dismiss this baseless assumption with the remark, that 
it lias not been dignified by the indorsement of any writer of respect- 
able attainments, known to the author, and it would not be noticed 
here, but for the frequency of its appearance in the pulpit, in the 
columns of denominational newspapers, and on the pages of partisan 
tracts. 

The dependence of the clause, "for the remission of sins," upon 
both the verbs repent and be immersed^ being established, it would 
seem undeniable that remission of sins is the blessing in order to 
the enjoyment of which they .were commanded to repent and be im- 
mersed. This is universally admitted so far as the term repent is 
concerned, but by many denied in reference to the command be im- 
mersed; hence the proposition that immersion is for the remission 
of sins is rejected by the Protestant sects in general. Assuming that 
remission of sins precedes immersion, and that, so far as adults are 
concerned, the only proper subjects for this ordinance are those 
whose sins are already pardoned, it is urged that for in this clause 
means " an account of" or 11 because of" Hence, Peter is understood 
to command, "Repent and be immersed on account of remission of 
sins already enjoyed." But this interpretation is subject to two insu- 
perable objections. 1st. To command men to repent and be immersed 
because their sins were already remitted, is to require them not only 
to be immersed on this account, but to repent because they were al- 
ready pardoned. There is no possibility of extricating the interpre- 
tation from this absurdity. 2d. It contradicts an obvious fact of the 
case. It makes Peter command the inquirers to be immersed be- 
cause their sins were already remitted, whereas it is an indisputable 
fact that their sins were not yet remitted. On the contrary, they 
were still pierced, to the heart with a sense of guilt, and by the ques- 
tion they propounded were seeking how they might obtain the very 
pardon which this interpretation assumes that they already enjoyed. 
Certainly no sane man would assume a position involving such ab- 
surdity, and so contradictory to an obvious fact, were he not driven 
to it by the inexorable demands of a theory which could not be other- 
wise sustained. 

We observe, further, in reference to this interpretation, that even 
if we admit the propriety of supplanting the preposition for by the 
phrase on account of, the substitute will not answer the purpose for 



42 



ACTS II: 38. 



which it is employed. The meaning of this phrase varies, according 
as its object is past or future " On account of" some past event 
may mean because it has taken place; but on account of an event yet 
in the future, would, in the same connection, mean in order that it 
might take place. The same is true of the equivalent phrase " be- 
cause of." If, then, the parties addressed by Peter were already par- 
doned " on account of the remission of sins," would mean, because 
their sins had been remitted. But as it is an indisputable fact that 
the parties addressed were yet unpardoned, what they are command- 
ed to do on account of remission of sins must mean, in order that 
their sins may be remitted. Such a rendering, therefore, would not 
even render the obvious meaning of the passage less perspicuous 
than it already is. 

It will be found that any other substitute for the preposition for, 
designed to force upon the passage a meaning different from that 
which it obviously bears, will as signally fail to suit the purpose of 
its author. If, with Dr. Alexander, we render. Repent and be im- 
mersed 11 to (or toward) remission of sins," we still have remission 
beyond both repentance and immersion, and depending upon them 
as preparatory conditions. Indeed, this rendering would leave it un- 
certain whether repentance and immersion would bring them to 
remission of sins, or only toward it, leaving an indefinite space yet 
to pass before obtaining it. 

If, witK others still — for every effort that ingenuity could suggest 
has been made to find another meaning for this passage — we render 
it, Eepent and be immersed unto or into remission of sins, the at- 
tempt is fruitless; for remission of sins is still the blessing unto which 
or into which repentance and immersion are to lead the inquirers. 

Sometimes the advocates of these various renderings, when dis- 
heartened by the failure of their attempts at argument and criticism, 
resort to raillery, and assert that the whole doctrine of immersion 
for the remission of sins depends upon the one little word for in the 
command, "be immersed for the remission of sins." If this were 
true, it would be no humiliation; for a doctrine based upon a word 
of God, however small, has an eternal and immutable foundation. 
But it is not true. On the contrary, you may draw a pencil-mark 
over the whole clause, "for the remission of sins," erasing it, with 
all the remainder of Peter's answer, and still the meaning will re- 
main unchanged. The connection would then read thus: "Brethren, 
what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, Eepent, and be im- 
mersed every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus." Remem- 
bering now that these parties were pierced to the heart with a sense 
of guilt, and that their question means, What shall we do to be saved 
from our sins f the- answer must be understood as the answer to that 
question. But the answer is, Iiepent and be immersed ; therefore, to 
repent and to be immersed are the two things which they must do in 
oi'der to be saved from their sins. 

The reader now perceives, that, in this first announcement to sin- 
ners of the terms of pardon, so guardedly has Peter expressed him- 
self, and so skillfully has Luke interwoven with his words the historic 
facts, that whatever rendering men have forced upon the leading 



ACTS II: 38. 



43 



term, the meaning of the whole remains unchanged; and even when 
you strike this term and its dependent words out of the text, that 
same meaning still stares you in the face. This fact is suggestive 
of more than human wisdom. It reminds us that Peter spoke, and 
Luke wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That infinite 
wisdom which was dictating a record for all time to come is dis- 
played here, providing for future controversies which no human be- 
ing could anticipate. Like the sun in the heavens, which may be 
temporarily obscured by clouds, but will still break forth again, and 
shine upon all but those who hide from his beams, the light of truth 
which God has suspended in this passage may be dimmed for a mo- 
ment by the mists of partisan criticism, but to those who are willing 
to see it, it will still send out its beams, and guide the trembling 
sinner unerringly to pardon and peace. 

If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper transla- 
tion and real meaning of the words dg axpeciv afiapTiuv, for the remis- 
sion of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid 
inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, 
and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur 
only once in a connection suitable to this purpose, but no number 
of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When insti- 
tuting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new cove- 
nant, shed for many for the remission of sins., ug apeoiv^ d/j.apriuv. It 
is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the 
remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which 
something is to be done ; in the passage we are discussing, it ex- 
presses the object for which something is commanded to be done: 
the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, 
and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be 
immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which 
the blood of Jesus was shed. The propitiation through his blood 
was in order to the offer of pardon, while repentance and immersion 
are enjoined by Peter upon his hearers, in order to the attainment 
of pardon. 

The careful reader will have observed that in stating the condi- 
tions of remission of sins to the multitude, Peter says nothing about 
the necessity of faith. This omission is not sufficiently accounted 
for by the fact that faith is implied in the command to repent and 
be immersed; for the parties now addressed were listening to the 
terms for the first time, and might fail to perceive this implication. 
But the fact is, that they did already believe, and it was a result of 
their faith, that they were pierced to the heart, and made to cry out, 
What shall we do ? This Peter perceived, and therefore it would 
have been but little less than mockery to command them to believe. 
It will be observed, throughout the course of apostolic preaching, 
that they never commanded men to do what they had already done, 
but took them as they found them, and enjoined upon them only 
that which they yet lacked of complete obedience. In the case be- 
fore us, Peter was not laying down a complete formula of the con- 
ditions of pardon ; but was simply informing the parties before him 
what they must do in order to the remission of their sins. Being 



ACTS II: 39. 



believers already, they must add to their faith repentance and im- 
mersion. 

Before dismissing this topic, we must remark that the doctrine of 
immersion for the remission of sins does not assume that immersion 
is the only condition of remission, but simply that, it is one among three 
conditions, and the last of the three. Administered previous to faith 
and repentance, as in the case of infants, it is not only absolutely 
worthless, but intensely sinful. 

The exact meaning of the term repent will be considered below, 
under iii: 19. 

After commanding the inquirers to repent and be immersed for the 
remission of sins, Peter adds the promise, " and you shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Spirit." The gift of the Holy Spirit should not be 
confounded with the Holy Spirit's gifts, nor with the fruits of the 
Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are religious traits of character, 
and they result from the gift of the Holy Spirit. The latter expres- 
sion means, the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is analogous to the expres- 
sion, "promise of the Holy Spirit," in verse 33, above, where Peter 
says, " having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, 
he has shed forth this which you now see and hear." The gifts of 
the Holy Spirit were various miraculous powers, intellectual and 
physical. These were conferred only upon a few individuals, while 
the gift of the Spirit is promised to all who repent and are immersed. 

39. Peter does not limit the promise of the Holy Spirit to his pres- 
ent audience; but adds, (39) " For the promise is to you and to your 
children, and to all that are afar off, even, as many as the Lord our God 
shall call." That we are right in referring the word promise, in 
this sentence, to the promise of the Holy Spirit just made by Peter, 
is evident from the fact that this is the only promise made in the 
immediate context. 

Some pedobaptist commentators have affected to find in the words, 
"The promise is to you and your children," a show of authority for 
infant membership in the Church of Christ.* But Mr. Barnes, though 
of that school himself, has the candor -to say of this expression, " It 
does not refer to children as children, and should not be adduced to 
establish the propriety of infant baptism, or as applicable particularly 
to infants. It is a promise, indeed, to parents, that the blessings of 
salvation shall not be confined to parents, but shall be extended also 
to their posterity." That this is, the true conception of the apostle's 
meaning is demonstrated by the fact that the promise in question is 
based upon the conditions of repentance and immersion, with which 
infants could not possibly comply. 

The extension of this promise " to all who are afar off," is not to 
be limited to all the Jews who were afar off ; but it is properly quali- 
fied by the additional words "even as many as the Lord our God 
shall call." It included, therefore, every individual who should, at 
any future time, be a subject of the gospel call, and guarantees to 
us, of the present generation, the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the 
same terms on which it was offered to Peter's hearers on the day of 
Pentecost. 



* Alex. 



ACTS II: 40, 41. 



45 



40. The historian has now concluded his report of Peter's dis- 
course, but informs us that he has given only an epitome of it. (40) 
" And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save 
yourselves from this untoward generation." The term testify refers to 
the argumentative portion of his discourse; and the term exhort to 
the hortatory portion. The latter naturally and logically followed 
his statement of the conditions of pardon, and the substance of it 
is compressed by Luke into the words, "Save yourselves from this 
untoward generation." The command to save themselves must sound 
quite strange in the ears of such modern theorists as affirm that men 
have no ability to do, or say, or think any thing tending to their 
own salvation. But this only shows how far they have departed 
from apostolic speech and thought. Peter had proposed conditions 
of pardon which they could comply with, and now their salvation 
depended upon their compliance with these conditions. When they 
complied with them, they saved themselves. To be saved from that 
untoward generation was not, as the conceit of Universalists would 
have it, to escape the siege of Jerusalem ; for the great mass of them 
escaped that, by dying a natural death before it took place. It was 
to escape the fate which the mass of that generation were destined 
to meet in eternity, on account of their sins. We will more fully 
discuss the exact import of the term saved in this and similar con- 
nections under verse 47, below. 

41. The multitude, who had been so pierced to the heart by Peter's 
discourse, as to cry out, "Brethren, what shall we do ? " were happily 
surprised to find the terms of pardon so easy. (41) " Then they gladly 
received his word, and were immersed; and the same day there were 
added about three thousand souls." The pronoun they identifies the par- 
ties immersed with those who had cried out, What shall we do? It 
shows that they promptly complied with the command which Peter 
had given them. The word which they gladly received can not be 
the main part of Peter's speech, for this had pierced them to the 
heart ; but it is the word of his answer, which gave their feelings 
great relief by opening to them so easy a method of escape from the 
doom which they dreaded, and which they so richly deserved. 

Times without number the objection has been urged, and as often 
refuted, that three thousand men could not have been immersed in so 
short a time, and with the inadequate supply of water afforded in 
Jerusalem. As to the quantity of available water, Dr. J. T. Barclay, 
in his work entitled " The City of the Great King," written during 
a residence of three years and a half in Jerusalem, as a missionary, 
shows that Jerusalem was anciently better supplied with water than 
any other city known to history not permeated by living streams. 
Even to the present day, though most of the public reservoirs are 
now dry, such as the supposed pool of Bethesda, 365 feet long by 
131 in breadth, and the lower pool of Gihon, GOO feet long by 2(50 in 
breadth, there are still in existence bodies of water, such as the pool 
of Siloam, and the pool of Hezekiah, affording most ample facilities 
for immersing any number of persons. 

As to the want of time for the immersion of so many, any one who 
will make the mathematical calculation, without which it is folly to 



3 

46 ACTS II: 41. 

offer the objection, will find that there was the greatest abundance 
of time. Allowing that Peter's speech commenced at nine o'clock, 
as he himself states in verse 15, and that the exercises at the temple 
closed at noon, we have left six hours till sunset. To immerse sixty 
men in an hour would be very deliberate work for one administrator. 
But there were twelve administrators, hence, each hour there were not 
less than seven hunched and twenty persons immersed. At this rate, 
in less than four and one-fourth hours the whole multitude would be 
immersed, leaving the sun nearly two hours high when the last can- 
didate emerged from the water. In view of this simple calculation, 
which a child could make, it is truly astonishing that so many grave 
critics and preachers should urge this objection. It strikingly illus- 
trates the blinding effects of partisan zeal. 

Now that the three thousand are added to the Church, we may 
glance back over the history of the day, and learn upon what prepar- 
ation they were received to the fellowship of the disciples. To accom- 
plish this, we must first consider their state of mind before Peter 
spoke to them, and then observe the changes through which they 
passed. Being Jews, then, they were already believers in the true 
God, and in the inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures. Luke 
declares, also, that they were " devout men." * They were, however, 
unbelievers in reference to Jesus Christ, and they were guilty of par- 
ticipating in his crucifixion. f At the moment that Peter arose to 
speak, they were full of amazement at witnessing the immersion of 
the twelve in the Holy Spirit, but their religious character remained 
unchanged. Peter speaks; and, at the conclusion of his argument, 
there is an evident change in their convictions. But they believe 
now nothing additional to what they did at first, except what Peter 
has proved to them. He has attempted to prove, however, only two 
propositions: first, That he and the eleven were inspired; second, 
That Jesus of Nazareth was now both Lord and Christ. The first, 
moreover, was established only as a means of proving the second. 
Several other subordinate facts were also proved for the same pur- 
pose, so that the whole speech is properly resolved into an attempt 
to prove the single proposition with which it concludes, that u God 
has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and 
Christ." This, then, is what the three thousand believed, and this 
is all that distinguished their faith when immersed, from what it was 
before they heard the gospel from Peter's lips. 

But another change had occurred within them. Under the influ- 
ence of their new faith, they were pierced to the heart with a sense 
of guilt. This is the "godly sorrow" which "works repentance," J 
and it prepared them to promptly obey Peter's command, " Repent, 
and be immersed." They repented, and were immersed. Their con- 
version, therefore, consisted in believing that Jesus is the Christ, 
repenting of their sins, and being immersed. This entitled them to 
membership in the Church, and so it does every human being who 
does likewise. 

42. Having been immersed simply upon their faith in Jesus Christ, 
these young disciples had many subordinate objects of faith to become 



* Verse 5. 



f Verse 23. 



X 2 Cor. vii : 10. 



ACTS Hi 42. 



47 



acquainted with, and many duties yet unknown, in which to be in- 
structed. In giving an account of these matters, Luke is far more 
brief, adhering strictly to the chief purpose of his narrative, which is 
to give the. process and means of conversion,, rather than a history of 
the edification and instruction of the converted. He closes this section 
of the history with a brief notice of the order established in the new 
Church, first describing their order of worship. (42) " And they con- 
tinued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching, and in fellowship, and in 
breaking the loaf) and in prayers." 

The apostles were as yet the only teachers of the Church, and in 
this work they were executing the second part of their commission, 
which required them to teach those whom they immersed all things 
tl»t Jesus had commanded. The same command which made it 
their duty to teach, made it also the duty of the disciples to learn 
from them, and to abide by their instruction. This duty the first 
disciples faithfully complied with, though it has been grievously neg- 
lected by their brethren of later ages. 

For the purpose of being taught by the apostles, they must have 
assembled together, and this was the occasion for manifesting their 
fellowship, which term expresses their common participation in re- 
ligious privileges. It has been urged by some writers, that the term 
kolvovlcl should here be rendered contribution, instead of fellowship, and 
that it refers to contributions which were regularly made in the 
public assemblies, for the poor. That the term is used in this limited 
sense in at least two places in the New Testament must be admitted, 
viz.: in Rom. xv: 16, "It hath pleased them of Macedonia to make 
a certain contribution for the poor of the saints in Jerusalem;" and 
in 2 Cor. ix: 13, where Paul says the saints "glorify God for your 
liberal contribution to them and to all men." But such is not, by 
any means, its common usage. It usually occurs in such connections 
as the following: "You were called into the fellowship of his Son 
Jesus Christ"* "The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of 
God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you."f " And 
truly our fellowship is with the Father and; with his Son Jesus 
Christ,"J "We have fellowship with one another." || 

The radical idea in this term is that of participation in common. 
We have fellowship with God, because we are made partakers of the 
divine nature, as we escape the corruption which is in the world 
through lust. We have fellowship with the Son, because of the com- 
mon sympathies which his lite and sufferings have established be- 
tween himself and us ; and with the Spirit, because we partake of 
the strengthening and enlightening influences of his teachings, and 
because he dwells in us. We have fellowship with one another, be- 
cause of the mutual participation in each other's affection and good 
offices. The term is also used in reference to the Lord's supper. 
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the 
blood of Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not the fellowship 
of the body of Christ ?"§ We partake in common of the benefits of 
his broken body and shed blood, which are symbolized in the cup 
and the loaf. 



* 1 Cor. i : 9. f 2 Cor. xiii : 14. {1 John i : 3. \ 1 John i : 7. g 1 Cor. x : 16. 



43 



ACTS II: 43. 



From the meaning of the term, as thus exemplified, originates its 
use in the sense of contribution ; for in the act of contributing to the 
necessities of others, we allow them to participate in the blessings 
which we enjoy. We are not authorized, however, by the rules of 
criticism, to give it this limited signification, except where the con- 
text clearly requires it. Seeing that Christians enjoy fellowship with 
so many sources of happiness, the term "unrestricted" must embrace 
them all. In the present instance the context imposes no limitation 
upon its meaning, and it would be quite arbitrary to restrict -it to 
the sense of contribution. The use of the article before mwcwkt, can 
not be pleaded as a ground for such restriction ; for it only indicates 
the notoriety of that which the term designates. Still, the idea of 
contributing to the wants of poor brethren is involved in the fellow- 
ship of Christians, and by the statement that they continued stead- 
fastly in the fellowship, we understand that they continued in the 
common participation of religious enjoyments, including contributions 
for the poor. Whether these contributions were made at every meet- 
ing or not, we are not informed; but they were certainly made when 
circumstances required. 

Together with the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, Luke 
enumerates "breaking the loaf and prayers," as part of the exercises 
in which the disciples continued. The frequency with which the loaf 
was broken is not intimated here. It will be discussed under chap- 
ter xx : 7. This brief statement shows merely that this institution, 
according to the Savior's command, was observed from the very be- 
ginning of the Church. 

The prayers mentioned are those that were offered in public. The 
number of prayers offered on any occasion, or the order in which the 
prayers, the instruction, breaking the loaf, and the other acts of fel- 
lowship followed each other, is not intimated. Luke's silence in refer- 
ence to these particulars may have arisen from the fact that there 
was no invariable order of exercises; or may have been intended to 
prevent the order in the Jerusalem Church from being regarded as 
an authoritative precedent. It shows clearly the intention of the 
Holy Spirit that the assemblies of the saints should be left to the 
exercise of their own discretion in matters of this kind, and furnishes 
a most singular rebuke to the hundreds of party leaders who have 
since attempted to impose authoritative rituals upon the congrega- 
tions. If the example of the Church in Jerusalem, in this respect, 
though its exercises were directed by the whole body of the apostles, 
was not binding upon other Churches, what body of uninspired men 
shall have the presumption to bind what God has purposely left free? 

43. Next to this brief notice of the exercises of the Church, we 
have a glance at the effect of the scenes just described, upon the sur- 
rounding community. (43) " And fear came upon every soul, and 
many wonders and signs were done by the apostles." This fear was not 
that which partakes of aversion, for we learn below, (47) that many 
were daily added to the Church; but it was that silent awe which 
miracles naturally inspired, mingled with respectful deference to a 
people of such holiness. 

44, 45. We are next introduced to a striking instance of the fellow- 



ACTS II: 44-47. 



49 



ship previously mentioned. (44) " Now all who believed were tog ether , 
and had all things common, (45) and sold their possessions and goods, 
and distributed them to all, as any one had need." This was not a 
community of goods, by which all were placed on a pecuniary level; 
for distribution was made only as any one had need. It was only 
such a liberality to the poor as should characterize the congregations 
of the Lord in every age and country. Poor brethren must not be 
allowed to suffer for the necessaries of life, though it require us to 
divide with them the last loaf in our possession. " He who has this 
world's goods and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his com- 
passion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?"* We will, 
hereafter, see that the Church in Jerusalem was not the only one 
which engaged in this species of benevolence, f This conduct was in 
marked contrast with the neglect of the poor which was then com- 
mon among the Jews, even in violation of their own law, and which 
was universal among the Gentiles. Nothing of this kind had ever 
been seen on earth before. We will refer to the subject again, under 
iv: 32, below. 

46, 47. The further history of the Church, for a short time, is con- 
densed into this brief statement: (46) u And they, continuing daily with 
one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, re- 
ceived their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) praising 
God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added those 
saved every day to the Church." 

Whether the disciples continued to offer sacrifices or not — on which 
question see Com. xxi: 18-26 — that they should "continue daily with 
one accord in the temple," was most natural. The temple had been, 
to them and their fathers, for many generations, the house of God 
and the place of prayer. The apostles had been led to its sacred pre- 
cincts by the Savior himself, and here it was that the Holy Spirit 
had come upon them. Their most holy local associations were con- 
nected with it, and it would have been doing great violence to their 
feelings to require them at once to abandon it. This natural rever- 
ence for the place continued till its destruction by Titus ; and even 
to this day, the hill where the temple once stood has a peculiarly 
sacred place in the hearts of Christians. The " breaking bread," 
k?ig)vtec aprov, mentioned in this sentence, is not the " breaking of the 
loaf," rj ulacLc rovaprov, of verse 42; but refers to common meals of 
which they partook "from house to house." This is evident from 
the connection: "breaking bread from house to house, they received 
their food with gladness and singleness of heart." It was that break- 
ing of bread in which they " received their food," which was not 
done in partaking of the emblematic loaf. There is no evidence that 
the emblematic loaf was ever broken in mere social gatherings. It 
belongs exclusively to the Lord's day.| 

By the expression "singleness of heart" is meant the concentra- 
tion of their affections and desires upon a single subject. This de- 
votion and concentration of thought could but result, as it did, in 
giving the disciples " favor with all the people," and causing daily 
additions to the Church. 

* 1 John iii : 17. f See Com. xi : 27-30. xx : 2-3.' J See xx : 7. 

5 



50 



ACTS III: 1-6. 



Those added to tlie Church daily were not " such as should be 
saved," as rendered in the common version, but rovg co^o/iivovg, the 
saved. In what sense they were saved, is a question of some im- 
portance. Dr. Hackett says: "The doctrine is that those who em- 
brace the gospel adopt the infallible means of being saved." This is, 
undoubtedly, true doctrine; but it is not what js taught in the pas- 
sage; for Luke speaks not of those who daily embraced the means of 
salvation, but of those who were saved. The view expressed by Alex- 
ander, that "men are said to be saved, not only in reference to the 
final consummation, but to the inception of the saving work," is a 
nearer approach to the true conception, but still falls short of it. It 
is not an inception of the saving work, of which Luke speaks, but 
the salvation referred to is complete; the parties spoken of being 
called "the saved." Both these learned commentators, by keeping 
their minds fixed upon a future state as offering the only fulfillment 
of the word "saved" have failed to discover the exact sense in which 
it is here used by the historian. Primarily, the term save means 
simply to make safe. In the religious sense, it means to make safe 
from the consequences of sin. If men had never sinned, they could 
not be saved, seeing they would be already safe. But having sinned, 
they are saved when they are made safe from the consequences of 
their sins. This is done when their sins are forgiven. At the mo- 
ment a penitent sinner obtains pardon, he is, so far as the past is 
concerned, completely saved. It is in this sense that the parties in this 
case added to the Church are called u the saved." Paul uses the term 
in the same sense when he says of God, "According to his mercy 
he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and the renewing of the 
Holy Spirit."* 

The fact that the Lord added the saved, or pardoned, to the Church, 
justifies two conclusions ; first, That men are entitled to membership 
in the Church the moment they are pardoned; second, That men 
should join the Church, not as a means of obtaining pardon, but be- 
cause they have already obtained it. The former conclusion shows 
that it is unscriptural to admit, as some parties do, that certain per- 
sons are pardoned, and yet refuse them Church-fellowship. The lat- 
ter condemns the practice observed by others, of receiving persons to 
membership "as a means of grace;" i. e., as a means of obtaining 
pardon. 

III. 1-10. Thus far, the labors of the apostles had met with un- 
interrupted and most astonishing success. Luke is now about to 
introduce us to a series of conflicts, in which success and temporary 
defeat alternate in the history of the Jerusalem Church. 

(1) " Now Peter and John were going up together into the temple at 
the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. (2) And a certain man, lame from 
his birth, was carried thither, whom they laid every day at the gate of 
the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of those entering into 
the temple: (2) who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, 
asked alms. (4) And Peter, earnestly looking on him, with John, said } 
Look on us. (5) And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive some- 
thing from them. (6) But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not; but 
♦ Titua iii : 5. See also 2 Tim. i : 9 ; 1 Cor. i : 18. 



ACTS III: 7-15. 



51 



what I have, this I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Naza- 
reth, rise up and walk. (7) And seizing him by the right hand, he 
lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankles received strength; 
(8) arid leaping forth, he stood and ivalked, and entered with them into 
the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. (9) And all the 
people saw him walking and praising God, (10) and recognized him, 
that it was he who sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple. And 
they were Jilted with wonder and amazement at that which had happened 
to him.' 1 

This is by no means the first miracle which had been wrought by 
the apostles since the day of Pentecost; for we have seen, in chapter 
ii: 43, that many signs and wonders had been wrought, by which 
the people were filled with awe. But the circumstances attending 
this miracle were calculated to awaken, as it did, an unusual excite- 
ment. The Beautiful gate of the temple, so called because of its 
magnificent folding doors, fifty feet high and forty wide, covered with 
gold and Corinthian brass, was the favorite pass-way into the temple. 
The subject of this cure, being laid every day at this gate to beg, 
was well known to all who frequented the temple. From the nat- 
ural curiosity of the benevolent in reference to the afflictions of those 
to whom they minister, it was probably known to all that he had 
been a cripple from his birth. Besides this, the time of the cure was 
when a multitude of pious people were entering the temple for even- 
ing prayer; and their attention was unexpectedly arrested by the leap- 
ing and shouting of the man who was healed. As they witnessed 
his ecstasy, and saw him clinging to Peter and John, no one asked 
the meaning of the scene, for all saw at once that the cripple had 
been healed by the apostles, and they stood gazing in amazement 
upon Peter and John. 

11-15. The apostles took a position in one of the open colonnades 
which faced the inner side of the temple wall, called JSolomon's Por- 
tico. (11) " And while the lame man who was healed was holding fast 
Peter and John, all the people ran together to them on the portico called 
Solomon s, greatly wondering." The admiration of the multitude was 
directed toward Peter and John ; and was understood by Peter to 
indicate that they attributed the cure rather to the singular holiness 
of himself and John, than to the power of their master. He determ- 
ined to take advantage of the circumstances, by turning their ex- 
cited thoughts into the proper channel. (12) " Then Peter, seeing this, 
answered to the people, Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or 
why do you look so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or 
piety toe had caused this man to walk? (13) The God of Abraham, 
arid of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his 
son Jesus, vihom you delivered up, and rejected in the presence of Pilate, 
when he had determined to let him go. (14) But you rejected the holy 
and just, and desired a murderer to be granted to you; (15) and you 
killed the author of life, whom God has raised from the dead, of which 
we are witnesses. 1 ' 

In this passage the apostle makes the same statement, in substance, 
witn which he introduced the main theme of his former discourse. 
The antithetical style adopted on this occasion gave to it a force 



52 



ACTS III: 16. 



scarcely excelled by his former discourse, while it was even more 

penetrating to the consciences of his hearers. The fact that the God 
of their fathers had glorified Jesus, is contrasted with the fact that they 
had delivered him up to die; their refusal to let him be released, with 
the cruel Pilate's determination to let him go; their rejection of one 
holy and just, with their demand that a murderer should be released 
to them ; and their murder of him, with his authorship of all life. 
These four points of antithesis form the four steps of a grand climax. 
Whom the God of your fathers glorified, you have delivered up to 
die. Your criminality is hightened by the fact, that when even a 
heathen judge declared him innocent, and desired to release him to 
you, you rejected him. Even this does not express the enormity of 
your guilt, for you yourselves knew him whom you rejected to be 
holy and just, and preferred the release of one whom you knew to 
be a murderer. But, above all, in murdering him, you put to death 
the author of life, who has arisen from the dead. We might chal- 
lenge the pages of all the classics for a climax more thrilling in its 
effect upon the audience, or for a happier combination of climax and 
antithesis. The effect upon the multitude was overwhelming.* The 
facts declared were undeniable, except the resurrection, and of this 
the men who had just healed the cripple were the witnesses. 

16. But Peter does not stop short with this climax, terminating in the 
resurrection* from the dead. He proceeds to prove his present power 
and glory by the -facts which were then filling them with amazement. 
(16) " And his name, through faith in his name, has made this man 
strong, whom you see and know. Even the faith vjhich is through him, 
has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you ally In 
this verse, there is one of those repetitions common with extempora- 
neous speakers, and designed to express more guardedly a thought 
already uttered. Perhaps the formula employed by Peter in the act 
of healing, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk," 
suggested to him the phraseology, "his name, through faith in his 
name. Las made this man strong." But lest the superstitious audi- 
ence might imagine that there was some charm in the mere name of 
Jesus, a mistake which was afterwards made by certain Jews in Ephe- 
sus,j he adds, " The faith which is through him has given him this 
perfect soundness." The faith was not that of the cripple: for it is 
clear, from the description, that he had no faith. When Peter said 
to him, "Look on us," the man looked up, expecting to receive alms. 
And even when Peter told him, in the name of Jesus, to rise up and 
walk, he did not attempt to move till Peter " took him by the right 
hand, and lifted him up." He exhibited no faith, either in Jesus, or 
in Peter's healing power, till after he found himself able to stand and 
walk. We must locate the faith, therefore, in the apostles; and in 
this we are sustained by the fact that the exercise of miraculous 
power, by those in possession of spiritual gifts, was always dependent 
upon their faith; Peter was empowered to walk upon the water; but, 
when his faith wavered, he began to sink, and Jesus said, "0 thou 
of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Nine of the apostles, 
once, having failed to cast out a demon, asked Jesus, " Why could 
*See below, on verse 17. t Acts x** : 13 - 



ACTS III: 17, 18. 



53 



we not cast him out?" He replied, " Because of your unbelief." * In 
answer to their prayers, also, many miracles were wrought, but it 
was only "the prayer of faith" which could heal the sick.-f- 

It must be here observed that faith was necessary to the exercise 
of spiritual gifts, already imparted, and that no faith, however strong, 
ever enabled the uninspired to work miracles. The notion, therefore, 
which has existed in some minds, from time to time, ever since the 
apostolic period, that if our faith were strong enough, we, too, could 
work miracles, has as little foundation in scripture as it has in ex- 
periment. 

17-18. At this point in the discourse there is a marked change 
in Peter's tone and manner, which we can attribute to nothing else 
than some visible indication of the intense pain produced by what 
he had already said. He had made a most terrific onslaught upon 
them, and exposed their criminality in unsparing terms ; but now, 
induced by some perceptible change in their countenances, he softens 
his style and extenuates their fault. (17) " And now, brethren, I know 
that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. (18) But those 
things which God had before announced through the mouth of all his 
prophets, that the Ohrist should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled." That 
they acted in ignorance of the real character of Jesus was an exten- 
uation of their crime, but it did not render them innocent; for the 
preceding remarks were intended to convict them of crime, and in his 
preceding discourse he charged that with wicked hands they had cru- 
cified and slain him. Peter assumes, what none of them could hon- 
estly deny, that it was by wicked motives they were impelled to the 
fatal deed. 

In connection with this assertion of their criminality, he states 
another fact hard to be reconciled with it in the philosophy of man, 
that, in the commission of this crime, God was fulfilling what he had 
declared through his prophets should be done. Once before, in speak- 
ing of this same event, Peter had brought these two apparently con- 
flicting facts, the sovereignty of God, and the free agency of man, 
into juxtaposition, when he said, " Him, being delivered by the de- 
termined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and with 
wicked hands have crucified and slain." That God had predeterm- 
ined the death of Jesus can not be denied without contradicting both 
the prophets and the apostles; and that they acted wickedly in doing 
what God had determined should be done, Peter affirms, and three 
thousand of them on Pentecost, with many more on this occasion, 
admitted it. If any man can frame a theory by which to philo- 
sophically reconcile these two facts, we will assent to it, if we can 
understand it; but unless both facts, unaltered, have a place in the 
theory, we must reject it. We reject every man who denies either of 
the facts; but while he admits them both, we will not dispute with 
him about the theory upon which he attempts to reconcile them. 
This much, fidelity to the word of God on the one hand, and broth- 
erly kindness on the other, demand of us. In the mean time, it is 
better to follow Peter's example. He lays the two facts side by side, 
appealing to the prophets for the proof of one, and to the consciences 



* Matt, xvii : 14. 



t Jamea v : 15. 



54 



ACTS III: 19-21. 



of men for the proof of the other, and there he leaves them, seeming 
not to realize that he had involved himself in the slightest difficulty. 
It is folly to attempt to climb where we are certain of a fall. 

19-21. Having now fully demonstrated the Messiah ship of Jesus, 
and exposed the criminality of those who had condemned him, the 
apostle next presents to his hearers the conditions of pardon. (19) 
Repent, therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, and, that 
seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, (20) and 
he may send Jesus Christ, to ho has before preached to you, (21) whom 
heaven must retain* until the time of the restoration of all things which 
God has spoken, through the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the 
world began. 

Here, as in his former statement of the conditions of pardon, the 
apostle makes no mention of faith. But, having labored, from the 
beginning of his discourse, to convince his hearers, they necessarily 
understood that his command, based as it was, upon what he had 
said, implied the assumption that they believed it, A command 
based upon an argument, or upon testimony, always implies the suffi- 
ciency of the proof, and assumes that the hearer is convinced. More- 
over, Peter knew very well that none would repent at his command 
who did not believe what he had said; hence, in every view of the 
case, he proceeded, naturally and safely, in omitting the mention of faith. 

In the command "Repent and turn," the word "turn" expresses 
something to be done subsequent to repentance. There is no way 
to avoid this conclusion, unless we suppose that turn is equivalent to 
repent; but this is inadmissible, because there could be no propriety 
in adding the command turn, if what it means had been already ex- 
pressed in the command repent. We may observe, that the term 
reform, which some critics would employ instead of repent, would in- 
volve the passage in a repetition not less objectionable. To reform 
and to turn to the Lord are equivalent expressions, hence it would be 
a useless repetition to command men, Reform, and turn. 

In order to a proper understanding of this passage, it is necessary 
to determine the exact scriptural import of the term repent. The 
most popular conception of its meaning is "godly sorrow for sin." 
But, according to Paul, " godly sorrow works repentance in order to 
salvation. "-j- Instead of being identical with repentance, therefore, it 
is the immediate cause which leads to repentance. Paul says to the 
Corinthians, in the same connection, "Now I rejoice, not that you 
were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance." This remark 
shows that it is sorrow which brings men to repentance, and- also 
implies that there may be sorrow for sin without repentance. That 
there is a distinction between these two states of mind, and that sor- 
row for sin may exist without repentance, is also implied in com- 
manding those on Pentecost who were already pierced to the heart, 
to repent. It is also evident from the case of Judas, who experienced 
the most intense sorrow for sin, but was not brought to repentance. 
His feeling is expressed by a different term in the original, which is 



deceive (common version) is the literal meaning of the original Xe'C*<r$xi, hut it is cer- 
tainly used here in the sense of retain. Heaven had already received him ; it was yet to 
retain him. t 2 P°¥- vii : 10 - 



ACTS III: 19-21. 



55 



never used to express the change which the gospel requires, and is 
equivalent to regret, though sometimes, as in his case, it expresses 
the idea of remorse. 

In thus tracing the distinction between "godly sorrow" and repent- 
ance, we have ascertained the fact that repentance is produced by 
sorrow for sin, and this must constitute one element in the definition 
of the term. Whatever it is, it is produced by sorrow for sin. Is it 
not, then, reformation ? Reformation is certainly produced by sorrow 
for sin ; but, as we have already observed, turning, which is equiva- 
lent to reforming, is distinguished, in the text before us, from repenting. 
The same distinction is elsewhere apparent. John the Immerser, in 
requiring the people to " bring forth fruits meet for repentance," 
clearly distinguishes between repentance and those deeds of a re- 
formed life which he styles fruits meet for repentance. With him, 
reformation is the fruit of repentance, not its equivalent. The dis- 
tinction is that between fruit and the tree which bears it. When 
Jesus speaks of repenting seven times a day,* he certainly means 
something different from reformation; for that would require more 
time. Likewise, when Peter required those on Pentecost to repent 
and be immersed, if by the term repent he had meant reform, he 
would certainly have given them time to reform before they were 
immersed, instead of immersing them immediately. Finally, the 
original term is sometimes used in connection with such prepositions 
as are not suitable to the idea of reformation. As a general rule it 
is followed by arro, or en, which are suitable to either idea; but in 
2 Cor. xii: 21, it is followed by em with the dative: "Many have not 
repented, em of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness 
which they have committed." Now men do not reform of their evil 
deeds, neither will the preposition, in this case, bear a rendering 
which would suit the term reform. j Reform, then, does not express 
the same idea as repent, but, as we have seen above, reformation is 
the fruit or result of repentance. 

Seeing now that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and re- 
sults in reformation, we can have no further difficulty in ascertaining 
exactly what it is; for the only result of sorrow for sin which leads 
to reformation, is a change of the will in reference to sin. The etymo- 
logical meaning of fieravoia is a change of mind; but the particular 
element of the mind which undergoes this change is the will. Strictly 
defined, therefore, repentance is a change of the will, produced by sor- 
row for sin, and leading to reformation. If the change of will is not 
produced by sorrow for sin, it is not repentance, in the religious sense, 
though it may be fieravoia, in the classic sense. Thus, Esau "found 
no place for fie-avoiaq, a change of mind, though he sought it carefully 
with tears."| Here the word designates a change in the mind of 
Isaac in reference to the blessing which he had already given to 
Jacob; but this change did not depend upon sorrow for sin, hence 
it was not repentance, and should not be so translated. Again, if the 
change of will, though produced by sorrow for sin, is one which does 
not lead to reformation, it is not repentance ; for there was a change 

* 1 Luke xvii : 4. 

f For the suggestion of this criticism, I am indebted to my friond and brother, H. T. 
Anderson. } Ilub. xii : 17. 



56 



ACTS III: 19-21. 



in the will of Judas, produced by sorrow for sin, yet Judas did not 
repent. The change in his case led to suicide, not to reformation; 
it is, therefore, not expressed by ueravoeo), but by juerafitXofiai. Our 
definition, therefore, is complete, without redundancy.* 

We can now perceive, still more clearly than before, that in the 
command, " Repent and turn," the terms repent, and turn, express 
two distinct changes, which take place in the order of the words. 
Their relative meaning is well expressed by Dr. Bloomfield, who says 
that the former denotes "a change of mind," the latter "a change 
of conduct!' Mr. Barnes also well and truly remarks: "This expres- 
sion (' be converted',} conveys an idea not at all to be found in the 
original. It conveys the idea of passivity — be converted, as if they 
were to yield to some foreign influence that they were now resisting. 
But the idea of being passive in this is not conveyed by the original 
word. The word properly means to turn — to return to a path from 
which one has gone astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to 
forsake them." That turn, rather than be converted, is the correct ren- 
dering of the term, is not disputed by any competent authority; we 
shall assume, therefore, that it is correct, and proceed to inquire what 
Peter intended to designate by this term. 

As already observed, it designates a change in the conduct. A 
change of conduct, however, must, from the very necessity of the case, 
have a beginning; and thai beginning consists in the first act of the 
better life. The command to turn is obeyed when this first act is per- 
formed. Previous to that, the man has not turned; subsequent to it 
he has turned; and the act itself is the turning act. If, in turning 
to the Lord, any one of a number of actions might be the first that 
the penitent performed, the command to turn would not specially de- 
signate any one of these, but might be obeyed by the performance 
of either. But the fact is that one single act was uniformly enjoined 
upon the penitent, as the first overt act of obedience to Christ, and 
that was, to be immersed. This Peter's present hearers understood. 
They had heard him say to parties like themselves, " Repent and 
be immersed;" and the first act they saw performed by those who 
signified their repentance, was to be immersed. When, now, he 
commands them to repent and turn, they could but understand that 
they were to turn as their predecessors had done, by being immersed. 
The commands turn, and be immersed, are equivalent, not because the 
words have the same meaning, but because the command " Turn to 
the Lord" was uniformly obeyed by the specific act of being immersed. 
Previous to immersion, men repented, but did not turn; after immer- 
sion, they had turned, and immersion was the turning act. 

We may reach the same conclusion by another course of reasoning. 
The command Turn occupies the same position between repentance 
and the remission of sins, in this discourse, that the command Be im- 
mersed had occupied in Peter's former discourse. He then said, 
"Repent and be immersed for the remission of sins;" he now says, 
"Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out." Now, when 
his present hearers heard him command them to turn in order to the 

* In perfecting thjs definition, I am indebted to Prof. W. K. Pendleton, of Bethany Col« 
lege, for valuable (suggestions. 



ACTS III: 19-21. 



57 



same blessing for which he had formerly commanded them to be 
immersed, they could but understand that the generic word turn was 
used with specific reference to immersion, and that the substitution 
is founded on the fact that a penitent sinner turns to God by being 
immersed. 

This interpretation was first advanced, in modern times, by Alex- 
ander Campbell, about thirty years ago, and it excited against him 
then an opposition which still rages. The real ground of this oppo- 
sition is not the interpretation itself, but a perversion of it. The word 
conversion being used in popular terminology in the sense of a change 
of heart, when Mr. Campbell announced that the word incorrectly 
rendered in this passage, be converted, means to turn to the Lord by 
immersion, the conclusion was seized by his opponents that he rejected 
all change of heart, and substituted immersion in its stead. He has 
reiterated, again and again, the sense in which he employed the term 
convert, and that the heart must be changed by faith and repentance 
previous to the conversion or turning here commanded by Peter; yet 
those who are determined upon doing him injustice still keep up the 
wicked and senseless clamor of thirty years ago. The odium thco- 
logicum, like the scent of musk, is not soon nor easily dissipated. 
There are always those to whose nostrils the odor is grateful. 

There are several facts connected with the use of the original term, 
£7rioTp€<pcj, in the New Testament, worthy of notice. It occurs thirty- 
nine times, in eighteen of which it is used for the mere physical act 
of turning or returning. Nineteen times it expresses a change from 
evil to good, and twice* from good to evil. If the term convert, there- 
fore, were retained as the rendering, a man could, in the scriptural 
sense, be converted to Satan as well as to God. But be converted can 
never truly represent the original, though it is so rendered six times 
in the common version. The original is invariably in the active 
voice, and it is making a false and pernicious impression on the En- 
glish reader to render it by the passive voice. If we render it truth- 
fully by the term convert, we would have such readings as these: 
"Repent and convert; 1 ' "lest they should see with their eyes, and hear 
with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and should convert, 
and I should heal them," etc. The absurdity of such a rendering 
shows the necessity for some other term. In a correct version of the 
New Testament, the expression be converted could not possibly occur; 
for there is nothing in the original to justify it. 

Not less. ..worthy of observation is the fact, that while the change 
called conversion is popularly attributed to a divine power, as the only 
power capable of effecting it, and it is considered scarcely less than 
blasphemy to speak of a man converting another, or converting him- 
self, yet the original word never does refer either to Cod, or Christ, 
or the Holy Spirit, as its agent. On the contrary, in Jive of its nine- 
teen occurrences in the sense of a change from evil to good, it is 
employed of a human agent, as of John the Immerser, Paul, or some 
brother in the Church ;f and in the remaining fourteen instances, the 
agent is the person who is the subject of the change. Thus, men may 
be properly said to turn their fellows, yet the subjects of this act are 



* Gal. iv : 9 ; 2 Peter ii : 21. 



t Luke i : 16, 17 ; Acts xxvi : 18 ; James v : 19, 20. 



58 



ACTS III : 19-21. 



never said to be turned, but to turn to the Lord. The term invari- 
ably expresses something that the sinner is to do. These observations 
show how immeasurably the term convert has departed, in popular 
usage, from the sense of the original which it so falsely represents, 
and how imperious the necessity for displacing it from our English 
Bibles. The word turn corresponds to the original in meaning, in 
usage, in inflections, and translates it unambiguously in every in- 
stance.* 

Peter commands his hearers to repent and turn, in order to three 
distinct objects: first, "That your sins may be blotted out;" second, 
" That seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the 
Lord;" third, "That he may send Jesus Christ who was before 
preached to you." It is supposed, by the commentators generally, 
that the last two events are contemplated by Peter as cotempora- 
neous, so that the "seasons of refreshing" spoken of are those which 
will take place at the second coming of Christ. That there will be 
seasons of refreshing then, is true; but there are others more imme- 
diately dependent upon the obedience here enjoined by Peter, to which 
the reference is more natural. The pardon of sins and the gift of 
the Holy Spirit, which were immediately consequent upon repentance 
and immersion, certainly bring "seasons of refreshing," which might 
well be made the subject of promise to hearers supposed to be trem- 
bling with guilty apprehension. The reference of these words is, 
doubtless, to the gift of the Spirit; for they occupy the same place 
here that the gift of the Spirit did in the former discourse. Then, 
after repentance, immersion, and the remission of sins, came the 
promise of the Holy Spirit; now, after the same three, somewhat 
differently expressed — L e., repentance, turning to the Lord, and blot- 
ting out of sins — comes the promise of " seasons of refreshing from 
the presence of the Lord." They are, then, the fresh and cheering 
enjoyments of him whose sins are forgiven, and who is taught to 
believe that the presence of the approving Spirit of God is with him. 

The third promise, that God would send Jesus Christ, who was 
before preached to them, was dependent upon their obedience only 
in so far as they would thus contribute to the object for which he 
will come, to raise from the dead, and receive into glory, all who are 
his. It is qualified by the remark, "whom heaven must retain until 
the times of the restoration of all things of which God has spoken 
by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." It 
is difficult to determine the exact force of the term restoration in this 
connection. It is commonly referred to a state of primeval order, 
purity, and happiness, which, it is supposed, will exist just previous 
to the second coming of Christf . But the apostle speaks of a restor- 
ation of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all 
his holy prophets. Now, there are many things spoken of by the 
prophets besides those which refer to the final triumphs of the truth, 
and all these are included in the expression. Some of these things 
will not consist, individually considered, in restoration, but in destruc- 
tion. Still, the prevailing object of all the things of which the prophets 



* It i a gratifying to observe that the incipient version of the American Bible Union cor- 
responds to the views here expressed. t Hackett. 



ACTS III: 22-26. 



59 



have spoken, even the destruction of wicked nations and apostate 
Churches, is to finally restore that moral sway which God originally 
exercised over the whole earth. It is doubtless this thought which 
suggested the term restoration, though reference is had to the fulfill- 
ment of all the prophesies which are to be fulfilled on earth. Not 
till all are fulfilled will Christ come again. 

22, 23. For the twofold purpose of giving confirmation to the claims 
of Jesus, and warning his hearers as to the consequences of rejecting 
him, the apostle next introduces a well-known prophesy of Moses. * 
(22) " For Moses, indeed, said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord 
your God raise up for you, from among your brethren, like me: him 
shall ye hear in all things, whatever he shall say to you. (23) And it 
shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall 
be destroyed from among the people." Whether Peter was right in 
applying this prophesy to Christ depends upon the likeness between 
him and Moses. This likeness may be traced in many subordinate 
incidents of his history, but lies chiefly in that which distinguishes 
both Moses and Christ from all other prophets. Moses was a deliv- 
erer of his people, and an original lawgiver. No prophet had been 
like him in these two particulars. The chief mission of the other 
prophets, so far as their cotemporaries were concerned, was to en- 
force the law of Moses. But Christ had now come, speaking by his 
own authority, offering a more glorious deliverance to the peojjle than 
that from Egypt, and issuing new laws for the government of men. 
This proved that he, and he alone, was the prophet spoken of by 
Moses, and Peter's hearers now perceive that the authority of Moses 
himself binds them to the authority of Jesus, and that they must 
hear him, on the penalty of destruction if they refuse. 

24. Not content with bringing to bear the testimony of Moses, 
Peter adds to it the combined voices of all the prophets: (24) " And, 
indeed, all the prophets, from Samuel and those following in order, as 
many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. 11 This declaration 
is to be understood only of those prophets whose predictions are re- 
corded in the Old Testament, for to these alone could Peter appeal in 
proof of his proposition. It was conceded by the Jews, that all the 
prophets had spoken of the days of the Messiah, and it was already 
proved, by Peter's preceding remarks, that Jesus was the Messiah; 
hence the argument is now complete. 

25, 26. Having completed his argument, in which the Messiahship 
of Jesus was demonstrated by the miraculous cure they had witnessed, 
and by the testimony of all the prophets, from Moses and Samuel 
down to Malachi, Peter next makes a powerful appeal to his hearers, 
based upon their veneration for the fathers of their nation, and for the 
covenant which God had made with them. (25) " You are the sons of 
the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, say- 
ing to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kingdoms of the earth be 
blessed. (26) Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, has 
sent him to bless you, in turning away each one of you from his ini- 
quities! 1 This was a tender appeal to their national sympathies, made 
more effective by the statement that to them first, because of their 

* Deut. xviii : 15-19. 



60 



ACTS IV: 1-3. 



relation to the prophets and to Abraham, God had sent his risen Son 
to bless them, before visiting the rest of the world. 

The use here made of the promise to Abraham shows the true in- 
terpretation of it. It is to be fulfilled, according to Peter, in turning 
living men away from their iniquities. Those only, therefore, who, 
under the influence of the gospel, turn away from their iniquities, 
can lay claim to the blessings contemplated in this promise. That 
all the kindreds of the earth were to be blessed does not affect this 
conclusion, except to extend its application to those of all nations 
who should, at any period of time, turn from their iniquities. The 
Universalian view of this promise is contradicted by all the apostolic 
comments upon it; for they all unite in denying the blessing to any 
but those who in this life believe and turn to the Lord.* 

IV: 1-3. Just at this point in Peter's discourse: u And while they 
were yet speaking to the people , the priests, and the captain of the temple, 
and the Sadducees came upon them, (2) being indignant that they taught 
the people, and preached,, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead. 
(3) And they laid hands on them, and put them in prison until the next 
day; for it ivas already evening." This sudden disturbance of the 
interested audience, by a body of armed men rushing through their 
midst and seizing Peter and John, is the beginning of a series of per- 
secutions with which Luke is about to follow the account of the first 
peaceful triumphs of the apostles. 

We would naturally, at first thought, expect to find the parties to 
this violent proceeding identical with the chief persecutors of Jesus, 
supposing that the same motives which had excited opposition to him 
would perpetuate it against his disciples. But the Pharisees were his 
most bitter enemies, the Sadducees being comparatively indifferent to 
his pretensions, while here we see the Sadducees leading the attack 
upon the apostles, and we will soon see the leader of the Pharisees 
interfering to save them from threatened death.f In order to appre- 
ciate this unexpected change in the aspect of parties, we must note 
a little more carefully the ground of opposition in each case. 

The supposition sometimes entertained that Jesus was hated by 
men simply because there is in human nature an innate aversion to 
truth and holiness, is not less false to the facts of history than to the 
nature of fallen man. It is disproved by the fact that it was not the 
mass of his cotemporaries who hated him, as the supposition would 
require, but chiefly, and almost exclusively, the Pharisees. That por- 
tion of the people who were most depraved, according to external 
appearances, heard him gladly, and delighted to praise him, while the 
Pharisees, who were most of all noted for their piety, were the men 
who hated him most. Neither were they actuated simply by an 
aversion to his holiness; for they had a more substantial, if not a 
better reason for hating him. If he had been content merely to go 
about doing good, and teaching righteousnesss, " letting other people 
alone," he might have passed his days in peace. But such was not 
his sense of duty. He knew that his teaching could not have proper 
effect unless the erroneous doctrines of the Pharisees, who were then 
the chief teachers of Israel, were dislodged from the public mind, and 
* See Gal. iii : 7-9, et al. | v : 3i > below. 



ACTS IV: 4-6. 



61 



the mask of hypocrisy, which had secured them their great reputa- 
tion for piety, were stripped off. He undertook, therefore, an offensive 
warfare upon their doctrinal tenets and their religious pretensions. 
The twenty-third chapter of Matthew contains an epitome of this 
warfare on his part, than which there is not a more withering phil- 
ippic on record in all literature. Such denunciation necessarily pro- 
voked the most intense hatred on the part of such Pharisees as were 
too deeply imbued with the prevailing spirit of the party to be reached 
by the truth. By this very fact, however, they made it more evident 
to the people that they deserved all the denunciation which he hurled 
against them. On the other hand, the Sadducees were so well pleased 
with his successful assaults upon their hereditary and too powerful 
enemies, that they forgave, in some degree, his known opposition to 
their favorite doctrine, and felt for him some friendly sympathy. 

With the apostles the relations of these parties were as naturally 
reversed. Instead of assaulting, in detail, the doctrinal tenets of any 
party, they confined their labors, at first, to testimony concerning the 
resurrection and glorification of J esus. This confirmed the chief dis- 
tinctive doctrine of the Pharisees, who believed in a resurrection, and 
it left their other tenets, for the time being, unnoticed. But the whole 
force of this preaching was leveled against Sadduceean infidelity in 
reference to the resurrection, and it therefore aroused this party to 
an activity never exhibited before. They rushed in and arrested Peter 
and John, "being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, 
through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead." They were seconded 
in this violent movement by the priests who were at the time offi- 
ciating in the temple, and who were either identified with the Saddu- 
cees, or were enraged because the apostles, in the very midst of the 
temple, were drawing away the people from waiting upon their serv- 
ices. 'The " captain of the temple," with his guard, was doubtless 
subject to the orders of the chief of the officiating priests, and executed 
the arrest. 

4. The audience who had been listening to Peter must have been 
thrown into intense excitement by the arrest, and the disciples among 
them, doubtless, expected to see re-enacted, in the persons of Peter 
and John, the murderous scenes which had terminated the life of 
their master. Notwithstanding this excitement, however, the words 
of Peter were not without a decided effect upon the hitherto unbe- 
lieving portion of his hearers ; for Luke says : (4) " But many of those 
who were hearing the word believed, and the number of the men became 
about five thousand." Whether this number includes the three thousand 
who were added on Pentecost or not, has been a matter of some dispute, 
but it is generally agreed by critics that it does. If those who believed 
on the present occasion were alone intended, the writer would have said 
the number ^v, was, instead of eyevqd?], became, about five thousand. 

5, 6. The prisoners having been arrested late in the afternoon, all 
further proceedings were adjourned till the next day, and Peter and 
John had the quiet of a night in prison for reflection and mutual en- 
couragement ere they were brought to trial. (5) " And it came to pass, 
on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and, scribes, (6) and Annas 
the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many 



62 



ACTS IV: 7. 



as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in Je- 
rusalem." This assembly was the great Jewish Sanhedrim, and the 
parties here named are the different officials who constituted that 
tribunal. Who John and Alexander were is not now known. Annas 
and Caiaphas are historical characters, conspicuous in the history 
of the trial of Jesus, and also prominent on the pages of Josephus. 
Between the latter and Luke there is an apparent discrepancy, in 
reference to their official position at this time, Luke calling Annas the 
high priest, and Josephus attributing that dignity to Caiaphas. Ac- 
cording to Josephus, Valerius Gratus, the immediate predecessor of 
Pontius Pilate, had removed Annas from the high priesthood, and 
after having appointed and removed three others, one of them, Ele- 
azar, the son of Annas, finally left Caiaphas in office, when he was 
superseded by Pilate.* The Apostle John informs us that Caiaphas 
was son-in-law to Annas. f According to the law of Moses the high 
priest held office during life; hence, in deposing Annas, the Koman 
governor violated the Jewish Law, and the act was religiously null 
and void. Annas was still high priest by right, and for this reason 
is so styled here by Luke. The Jews, also, recognized his right, by 
taking Jesus before him for trial, though he, not daring to claim the 
office, sent them to Caiaphas. In his former narrative, Luke also 
mentions them both as being high priests at the same time. % This is 
best explained by the fact that one was rightfully entitled to the office, 
and the other was exercising it by illegal appointment. 

The "kindred of the high priest" embraced not only the chief 
members of his immediate family, but also some of the deposed high 
priests, who were all, in great probability, connected with the one 
high priestly family, and thereby entitled to seats in the Sanhedrim. 

7. When the court was assembled, the prisoners were introduced, 
and the cripple who had been healed had the boldness to appear by 
their side. (7) " And placing them in the midst, they asked, By what 
power, or by what name, have you done this f" 

This was not the first time that Peter and John had been together 
in the presence of this august assembly. As they gazed around for 
a moment, and recognized the faces of their judges, they could not 
fail to remember that terrible morning when their master stood there 
in bonds, and they themselves, full of fearful misgivings, stood in a 
distant part of the hall, and looked on. The fall, and the bitter tears 
of Peter, on that occasion, were now a warning and a strength to 
them both, and their very position brought to mind some solemn 
words of Jesus which had never acquired a present value till now. 
"Beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and 
they will scourge you in their synagogues, and you shall be brought 
before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and 
the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or 
what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour 
what you shall say. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of 
your father that speaks in you." || Cheered by this promise, they now 
stand up before their accusers and judges with a boldness unaccount- 
able to the latter. 



Jos. Aut. B. xviii, chap. 2. f John xviii : 13-24 J Luke iii : 2. I Matt, x : 17-20. 



ACTS IV: 8-13. 



63 



The prisoners had been arrested without a formal charge being 
preferred against them, ana the court was now dependent upon what 
might be extorted from them, for the ground of their accusation. 
The question propounded to them is remarkable for its vagueness. 
By what power, or, in what name, have you done this f Done what ? 
might have been the answer. Done this preaching ? or this miracle? 
or what f The question specified nothing. There was no one par- 
ticular thing done by Peter, on which they dared fix attention ; but 
they frame an indefinite question, in attempting to answer which they 
evidently hoped he would say something on which they might con- 
demn him. 

8-10. They could not, however, have asked a question which suited 
Peter any better. It left him at liberty to select any thing he had 
done as the subject of reply, and, therefore, he chose to select that 
deed, which, of all that had been done, they were most unwilling to 
hear mentioned. He frames his answer, too, with a more direct ref- 
erence to the other terms of their question, than they either desired 
or anticipated. (8) " Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to 
them : Rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (9) If we are exam- 
ined this day concerning the good deed done to the impotent man, by what 
means he has been saved, (10) be it known to you all, and to all the people 
of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you cruci- 
fied, whom God raised from the dead, by him doth this man stand be- 
fore you sound." This statement needed no proof, for the Sanhedrim 
could not deny, with the man standing before them, that the miracle 
had been wrought, nor could they, with plausibility, attribute the deed 
to any other power or name than that assumed by Peter. To deny 
that it was a divine power would have been absurd in the estima- 
tion of all the people; but to admit that the power was divine, and 
yet reject the explanation given by those through whom it was ex- 
ercised, would have been still more absurd. 

11, 12. Realizing the advantage which he had now gained, Peter 
pushes his adversaries into still closer quarters, by adding: (11) " This 
is the stone which was despised by you builders, which has become the head 
of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there 
is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be 
saved." In this passage, he places his proud judges in the ridiculous 
attitude of searching about vainly for a stone to fit the corner of the 
foundation, while persistently rejecting the real corner-stone, without 
which the building can not be reared. And, leaving the figurative 
language of David, he more plainly declares, that there is no salvation 
for man except in the name of the very Jesus whom they had cruci- 
fied. This proposition is universal, and shows that the redemption 
effected by Jesus will include every human being who shall finally 
be saved. 

13, 14. Instead of answering evasively and timidly, as was expected 
of men in their social position, when arraigned in such a presence, 
the apostles had unhesitatingly avowed the chief deed of yesterday's 
proceedings, with the name in which it had been done, stating all in 
the terms most obnoxious to their hearers. (13) " Now, seeing the 
freedom of speech of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were 



64 



ACTS IV: 14-20. 



illiterate and private men, they were astonished, and recognized them, 
that they had been with Jesus. (14) But beholding the man who was 
healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it." There was 
total silence for awhile, when Peter ceased speaking. Is ot a man in 
tKe Sanhedrim could open his mouth in reply to Peter's brief speech. 
He had avowed every obnoxious sentiment on account of which they 
had been instigated to arrest him, yet not one of them dares to con- 
tradict his words, or to rebuke him for giving them utterance. The 
silence was painful and embarrassing. 

15, 16. Finally, the silence was broken by a proposition that the 
prisoners be withdrawn. (15) "And having commanded them to go 
aside out of the Sanhedrim, they conferred among themselves, (16) saying, 
What shall we do to these men f For that, indeed, a noted miracle has 
been wrought by them, is manifest to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we 
can not deny it." This admission, in their secret deliberations, shows 
the utter heartlessness and hypocrisy of their proceedings, and it is 
astonishing that they could any longer give each other countenance 
in such a course. 

17. The real motive which controlled them, and under the influence 
of which they kept each other in countenance, was an unconquerable 
desire to maintain their old influence with the people. This is mani- 
fested in the conclusion to whic-h they came. (17) "But, that it may 
be spread no further among the people, let us strictly threaten them, that 
they speak, henceforth, to no man in this name." The man who made 
this proposition no doubt thought that he had most satisfactorily 
solved a difficult problem, and the majority were too well pleased to 
find some means of escape from their present awkward predicament, 
to look very shrewdly into the probable success of the measure pro- 
posed. It was a safe course, if not a very bold one, and as there was 
no obstacle in the way but conscience, they could find no difficulty 
in pursuing it. 

18. The resolution was no sooner formed than acted upon. (18) 
"And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor 
teach in the name of Jesus." How Luke learned the particulars of 
the secret consultation which resulted in this injunction, we are not 
informed, though it is not difficult to imagine. Gamaliel, Saul's 
teacher, and perhaps Saul himself, was present as a member of the 
Sanhedrim; and a great company of the priests themselves afterward 
became obedient to the faith.* These and other conversions from the 
ranks of the enemy opened up channels for such information in 
abundance. 

19. 20. The apostles, if at all anxious concerning their personal 
safety, might have received this stern command in silence, and re- 
tired respectfully from the assembly. (19) "But, Peter and John an- 
swered and said to them, Whether it is right, in the sight of God, to 
hearken to you rather than to God, do you judge. (20) For we can not 
but speak the things which we have seen and heard." This was an open 
defiance of their power, with a direct appeal to their own consciences 
for a vindication of it. The apostles were not willing that their silence 
should be construed into even a momentary acquiescence in such a 

* Chap, vi : 7, below. 



ACTS IV: 21-30. 



65 



command, and they spoke in such a manner as to be distinctly un- 
derstood. 

21, 22. It was a sore trial to the haughty spirits of the Sanhedrim 
to brook such defiance; but a desire to conciliate the people, mingled, 
no doubt, with a secret fear of the consequences of putting to death 
men who had exercised such power, restrained their wrath. (21) 
"And when they had further threatened them, they let them, go, not find- 
ing how they might punish them, because of the people ; for all glorified 
God for that which was done. (22) For the man on whom this miracle 
of healing ivas wrought was more than forty years of age." 

23-30. The apostles had now humbled the pride of their adversa- 
ries, and went away from the assembly in triumph. But they were 
uninfiated by their present prosperity, as they had been undaunted 
by their recent danger. They had now attained that lofty degree of 
faith and hope which enables men to maintain a steady calmness 
amid all the vicissitudes of life. The course they immediately pur- 
sued is worthy of remembrance, and of all imitation. (23) "And be- 
ing let go, they went to their own company, and reported what the high 
priests and the elders had said, to them. (24) And when they heard it, 
they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said: /Sovereign 
Lord, thou God who hast made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, 
and all that is in them; (25) who through the mouth of thy servant 
David hast said, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain 
things ? (26) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gath- 
ered together against the Lord arid against his anointed. (27) For, of 
a truth, against thy holy son Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, 
and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were 
gathered together, (28) to do what thy hand and thy counsel determined 
before to be done. (29) And now, Lord, behold their threatening s ; and 
grant to thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, 
(30) by stretching out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders 
may be done through the name of thy holy son Jesus." This prayer 
was uttered by one of the brethren, and the expression, " they lifted 
up their voice with one accord," indicates the perfect unity of senti- 
ment with which they followed the words of the leader. 

In all the prayers of the apostles, we observe strict appropriateness, 
in the ascription to God with which they open, and a remarkable 
simplicity in presenting the exact petition, and no more, which the 
occasion demands. On a former occasion, they had set before him 
two men, that he might choose one for the apostolic office, and they 
addressed him as the " heart-knower ;" now they desire his protecting 
power, and they style him the "Sovereign God who made heaven and 
earth, and the sea, and all that is in them." They remind him that, 
according to his own words by David, kings and rulers, in the per- 
sons of Herod and Pilate, had risen up against his anointed, while 
the people and the Gentiles were imagining vain things; and they 
pray him to "behold their threatening," and grant to his servants 
boldness to speak the word in defiance of all opposition. 

In these days of passion and war, in which it is common for prayers 
to be filled with earnest entreaties for victory over our enemies, and 
sometimes with terrible maledictions against those who are waging 



66 



ACTS IV: 31-35. 



war against our supposed rights, it is quite refreshing to observe the 
tone of this apostolic prayer. These men were not in danger of losing 
some mere political power or privilege, but the dearest and most in- 
disputable right they had on earth was denied them, and they were 
threatened with death if they did not relinquish it: yet, in their .pray- 
ers, they manifest no vindictive nor resentful spirit; but, in reference 
to their enemies, they simply pray, Lord, behold their threatenings. 
Their gentle spirits never could have conceived that unblushing im- 
piety which now so often brings men upon their knees for the very 
purpose of pouring out in the ears of God those violent and destruc- 
tive passions which he has forbidden us to allow a place even within 
our hearts. By such prayers men seek to make God a partisan in 
every angry contention among men, as though he were nothing more 
than themselves. Much needs to be said upon this unhappy theme, 
but it can not be said here. 

In praying for boldness the apostles give an intimation of the man- 
ner in which they expected it to be imparted to them. It was not by 
some direct and internal spiritual impact, but by external manifesta- 
tions of his continued presence and favor: " by stretching out thy hand 
to heal, and that signs and wonders may be wrought through the 
name of Jesus." 

31. The prayer for boldness was answered at once, and in the way 
they had requested. (31) " And when they had prayed, the place in 
which they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled 
with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness." The 
shaking of the house, attended by a conscious renewal of the miracu- 
lous power of the Holy Spirit, gave them the boldness for which they 
prayed, because it assured them that God was still with them. 

32-35. From this brief account of the first conflict of the young 
congregation, Luke again turns, to view more minutely the internal 
condition of the Church. Their religious life was now more fully 
developed, than at the period glanced at in the close of the second 
chapter, and his description is more in detail. (32) 11 Now the mul- 
titude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did 
one of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, 
but they had all things common. (33) And with great power the apos- 
tles gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and 
great favor was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among them 
who lacked ; for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses, sold 
them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid 
them at the feet of the apostles ; and it was distributed to each, as any 
one had need." 

Considering the immense numbers of this congregation, and that 
they were so suddenly drawn together from every class of society, it 
is certainly remarkable, and well worthy of a place in this record, 
that they were 11 of one heart and of one mind." But the most signal 
proof of the power of the gospel among them was the almost entire 
subsidence of selfishness. Among the heathen nations of antiquity, 
systematic provision for the wants of the poor was unknown; and 
even among the Jews, whose law was watchful for the welfare of the 
poor in many respects, those who became insolvent were sold into 



ACTS IV: 36. 67 
t 

temporary bondage to pay their debts. It was, therefore, a new thing 
under the sun, to see a large community selling houses and lands to 
supply the wants of the poor. It could but give additional weight 
to all that was said by the apostles, and for this reason Luke breaks 
the thread of his statements concerning it, to throw in the remark, 
that " With great power the apostles gave testimony concerning the 
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was among them all." 
This remark does not mean that the testimony of the apostles was 
more distinct or positive, or that it was sustained by more signal 
miracles than before; for neither of these is possible. But it means 
that their testimony had more power with the people; and thfe is 
attributed to the harmony observed within the Church, together with 
their unheard-of benevolence, which combined to give them "great 
favor" with the people. 

The fact that distribution was made to each as he had need, shows 
that it was only the needy who received any thing, and that there 
was no equalization of property. The sale of property and the con- 
secration of the proceeds was voluntary with each individual, and 
not an established law of the Church. This is evident from the ques- 
tion of Peter to Ananias, below: "While it remained, was it not your 
own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?"* 

36. After stating that many brethren who had property sold it, and 
gave up the proceeds, Luke now gives an individual instance of this 
liberality, introduced, no doubt, on account of the subsequent celeb- 
rity of the individual. (36) " Now Jesus, who was surnamed Barnabas 
by the apostles, (which is, when translated, son of exhortation,) a Levite, 
a Cyprian by birth, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and 
laid, it at the feet of the apostles." This surname was given to Jesus 
on account of his excellence in hortatory addresses, and not on ac- 
count of the consolation which he afforded by his liberality. The 
original term TtapaKXyai.g, rendered consolation in the common version, 
is a verbal noun used to express both the act of the verb TrapanaXeiv 
and the effect produced by it. We have no one word in English to 
represent it in these two senses; but exhortation expresses the act, 
and consolation the effect. We have, therefore, exhortation eight times 
in the common version, when the -rraparfif/occ is connected with the 
agent,f but always consolation when the reference is to the recipient. 
As Barnabas is contemplated as the agent, in this case, it should be 
exhortation, not consolation. This criticism is confirmed by the his- 
tory of Barnabas. When the Church in J erusalem heard that a con- 
gregation was planted in Antioch, they sent Barnabas thither, who 
" exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to 
the Lord."J This exhorting being the object for which he was sent, 
his selection for the mission indicates his superiority in that kind of 
talent. Perhaps it was chiefly on account of this talent, in which 
Paul was deficient, that Barnabas became the traveling companion 
of this apostle. It is a talent much more rare than mere logical 
power, and has always been highly prized by the Churches. 

* See also vi : 1. 

t Acts xiii : 15 ; Rom. xii : 8 ; 1 Cor. xiv : 3; 1 Thess. ii : 3 ; 1 Tim. iv : 13 ; Heb. xii : 5 ; 
Xiii : 22 ; 2 Cor. viii : 17. J Acts xi : 23. 



68 



ACTS V: 1, 5. 



It is quite probable that the land sold by Barnabas constituted his 
whole estate. Having no family dependent on him, he consecrated 
his life to unrequited missionary labor.* 

V: 1, 2. In close connection with this unprecedented liberality of 
the brethren, we are now introduced to a remarkable case of corrup- 
tion, of which it was the occasion. The praise always lavished on 
disinterested benevolence sometimes prompts illiberal men to make 
a pretense of liberality. But the mere desire of praise is incapable 
of subduing selfishness, so as to make a truly liberal heart; for it is 
itself a species of selfishness. In contrast with the course of Barna- 
bas, we are told : (1) " But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira 
his wife, sold a possession, (2) and kept back part of the price, his wife 
being also privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the feet 
of the apostles." This language implies, what is distinctly avowed by 
the wife below, that this part was represented as the whole price of 
the possession. 

3, 4. " But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled thy heart, to 
lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 
(4) While it remained, was it not your own ? And after it was sold, 
was it not in your own control? Why hast thou put this thing in thy 
heart? Thou hast lied not to men, but to God." Here Peter brings 
together the influence of Satan, and the free agency of the tempted, 
just as he had, in former discourses, the free agency of men, and the 
purposes of God.f He demands of Ananias, "Why has Satan filled 
thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit," and, in the same breath, "Why 
hast thou put this thing in thy heart?" The existence and agency 
of the tempter are distinctly recognized, yet it is not Satan, but Ana- 
nias who is rebuked; and he is rebuked for doing the very thing that 
Satan had done, showing that he is as guilty as though Satan had 
no existence. Indeed, he is rebuked for what Satan had done. The 
justice of this is manifest from the fact that Satan had no power to 
fill his heart with evil, without his co-operation. That he had ren- 
dered this co-operation, threw the responsibility upon himself. 

Peter's knowledge of the deception was the result not of human 
information, but of the insight imparted to him by the Holy Spirit. 
This is necessary to the significance of the entire incident, as well as 
to the purport of Peter's own words. 

5. The exposure of Ananias was very surprising, but neither the 
audience, nor perhaps Peter, was prepared by it for the event which 
immediately followed. (5) " And Ananias, hearing these words, fell 
down and expired. And great fear came upon all who heard these 
things." There is no evidence that Peter had any will of his own 
in this matter; but it was an act of divine power exerted independent 
of the apostolic agency. The responsibility, therefore, attached not to 
Peter as an officer of the Church, but to God as the moral governor 
of the world. The propriety of the deed may be appreciated best by 
supposing that Ananias had succeeded in his undertaking. His suc- 
cess would not only have turned the most praiseworthy feature of the 
new Church into a source of corruption and hypocrisy, but it would 
have brought discredit upon the inspiration of the apostles, by show- 



* 1 Cor. ix : 6. 



f See Com. iii: 17-18. 



ACTS V: 6-10. 



09 



ing that the Spirit within them could be deceived. Thus the whole 
fabric of apostolic authority, which was based upon their inspiration, 
would have fallen, and precipitated the entire cause into hopeless ruin. 
The attempt, therefore, presented a crisis of vital importance, and de- 
manded some such vindication of their inspiration as could neither 
be mistaken nor forgotten. The immediate effect of the event was 
just the effect desired: "great fear came upon all who heard these 
things." 

6. The scene was too awful for lamentation, or for needless funeral 
services. As when Nadab and Abihu fell dead at the door of the tab- 
ernacle with strange fire in their censers,* there was no weeping nor 
delay. All were stricken with horror, as they saw the curse of God 
fall upon the wretch. (6) " And the young men arose, wound him up, 
and carried him out, and buried him." 

7. Sapphira was not present. (7) 11 And it was about the space of 
three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in." 
How she remained so long ignorant of the fate of her husband, we 
are not informed, though it is a most extraordinary circumstance. 
He had died suddenly, in a manner which had excited everybody; 
had been buried ; and three hours had passed ; yet his wife, who must 
have been in the vicinity, has no intimation of it, but comes into the 
very assembly where it had occurred, without a word reaching her 
ear upon the subject. There is no way to account for this, but by 
the supposition that there was a concerted determination on the part 
of the whole multitude to conceal the facts from her. This was a 
most unnatural determination, and one difficult of execution, except 
on the further supposition that Peter commanded the multitude to 
restrain their natural impulses, and let her know nothing until he 
himself was ready to reveal it to her. This course was necessary in 
order to effectually expose her. 

8-10. She came in prepared to act out fully the part which she had 
agreed upon with her husband. (8) "Then Peter answered her, Tell 
me whether you sold the land for so much f She said, Yes ; for so much. 

(9) Then Peter said to her, Why is it that you have agreed together to 
put to proof the Spirit of the Pordf Behold, the feet of them who 
have buried thy- husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. 

(10) Then she immediately fell at his feet and expired : and the young 
men coming in found her dead, and carried her out, and buried her by 
her husband." In her case, Peter knew what was about to take place, 
and declared it; but there is no indication that he exerted his own 
will or miraculous power to cause her death. We regard her death, 
like that of Ananias, as a miracle wrought independent of the power 
lodged in the apostles. 

In the question "Why have you agreed together to put to proof 
the Spirit of the Lord?" Peter expresses the result of their agreement, 
though it may not have been what they had in view. They did put 
the Spirit to proof, by testing his powers. If he had failed under the 
test, the consequences, as we have suggested above, would have been 
disastrous. But now that the test applied has triumphantly vindi- 

+ Lev. x : 1-T. 



70 



ACTS V: 11-16. 



cated the fullness of apostolic inspiration, it was not likely that such 
another attempt could be made. 

11. The failure of the plot proved as propitious to the cause of 
truth as its success would have been disastrous. (11) "And great 
fear came upon all the Church, and upon all who had heard these thi?igs." 
This fear was excited, not only by the sudden and awful fate of the 
guilty pair, but also by the "fearful nature of that spirit-searching 
knowledge imparted to the apostles. The disciples were now filled 
with more just conceptions than before of the nature of inspiration, 
and the unbelieving masses who heard of the event were awed into 
respect and reverence. 

12, 13. Increased activity of the apostles followed, and their office 
was still further magnified. (12) "And through the hands of the apos- 
tles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they 
were all, with one accord, in Solomon's Portico, (13) and of the rest no 
man dare join himself to them, but all the people magnified them." It 
was the apostles alone who were in Solomon's Portico, as is evident 
from the fact that the term apostles, in the first clause of the 12th 
verse, furnishes the only antecedent to the pronoun they, in the state- 
ment "they were all, with one accord," etc. This being so, " the rest," 
who dared not join themselves to them, must include the other dis- 
ciples, as well as the unbelieving multitude. It need not be concluded, 
from this, that the disciples stood off at the same fearful distance 
with unbelievers; but that they were so filled with awe by the exhi- 
bition connected with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira, that they 
dared not approach the apostles with the familiarity which had 
marked their Jbrmer intercourse with them. Such a feeling was at 
first experienced by the apostles themselves in the presence of Jesus, 
and was well expressed by Peter, when he and his companions made 
the first miraculous draught of fishes : falling down at the knees of 
Jesus, he exclaimed, " Depart from me ; for I am a sinful man, 0 
Lord."* That such a feeling was also experienced by the whole 
Church, at this time, has just been stated by the historian, in verse 
11, where he says, " Great fear came upon all the Church." 

14. The statement just made, that " of the rest no man dared to 
join himself to them," can not mean that persons dared not join 
the Church, for the reverse is now stated. (14) "And believers were 
the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." The 
increased awe in the presence of the apostles, with which the people 
were inspired, made them listen with increased respect to their testi- 
mony concerning Jesus, and brought them in greater numbers to 
obedience. 

15, 16. The connection of Luke's next statement, introduced by the 
adverb so that, is somewhat obscure : but I presume he intends to 
state a result of all the facts just mentioned. Signs and wonders 
were done by the apostles ; the people magnified them, and believers 
were the more added to the Lord. (15) "iSo that they brought forth the 
sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the 
shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. (1G) There 

* Luke v : 8. 



ACTS V: 17-25. 



71 



came also a multitude out of the cities round about to Jerusalem, bring- 
ing the sick and those vexed by unclean spirits, who were all healed." 

17-18. The excitement which now prevailed throughout Jerusalem 
and the neighboring villages, and found utterance in the most enthu- 
siastic praise of the apostles, was too much for the equanimity of 
the dignitaries who had so strictly forbidden them to preach or teach 
in the name of Jesus. (17) " Then the high priest rose up, and all 
who were with him, being the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled 
with zeal, (18) and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in 
the public prison. 11 Here we have the same Sadducees at work who 
had arrested and threatened Peter and John. They were* 8 ' filled with 
zeal;" but it was a zeal inspired less by love for their own cause, 
than by hatred for that which was triumphing over it. The advocates 
of error will generally appear quite easy, and, sometimes, even gen- 
erous, when their cause is merely standing still; but their zeal is al- 
ways" kindled when the truth begins to make inroads upon them. 
The zeal of these Sadducees was fanned to its fiercest heat by recent 
events, and they determined to execute the threats with which they 
had recently dismissed two of the apostles, making all the twelve 
their present victims. 

19-21. When they were all seized and cast into prison together, 
the apostles could but expect that they would now feel the entire 
weight of the wrath which was treasured up against them. (19) 
"But an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors in the night, and 
led them forth, and said, (20) Go stand in the temple, and speak to the 
people all the words of this life. (21) And having heard this they entered 
into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest 
came, and those who were with him, and called together the Sanhedrim, 
and all the eldership of the children of Israel, and sent into the prison 
to have them brought. 11 The apostles were already in the temple, 
teaching the early worshipers as if nothing unusual had occurred, 
when the Sanhedrim met and sent to the prison for them. 

22, 23. -After some delay, the officers returned into the presence of 
the Sanhedrim without their prisoners. (22) u But when the officers 
arrived, and did not find them in the prison, they returned and an- 
nounced, (23) saying, The prison we found closed with all safety, and the 
guards standing before the doors ; but when we opened them, we found no 
one within. 11 This appalling circumstance would have been sufficient, 
with less determined men, to stay all hostile proceedings, and even 
to disperse the court who had assembled for the trial of the apostles. 

24-26. The startling announcement was not without serious effect 
even upon the stubborn Sadducees. They were staggered by it, and 
knew not at first what to do or think. (24) " Now when the high 
priest, and the captain of the temple, and the chief priests heard these 
words, they were perplexed concerning them,, what this might come to. 
(25) But some one came and announced to them, Behold, the men whom 
you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the peopled 
This announcement relieved the perplexity of the Sanhedrim, by en- 
abling them to proceed with business, and relieving them from the 
unpleasant necessity of dispersing without a good excuse. They now 
dispatch a more honorable guard after the apostles than they had, 



72 



ACTS V: 26-32. 



at first; for the captain of the temple himself takes command. (26) 

" Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without vio- 
lence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned." The 
clause, "lest they should be stoned," is so arranged as to furnish a 
reason for both the preceding statements, that they u feared the peo- 
ple," and that they ''brought them without violence." The enthusi- 
asm of the people had been much increased, no doubt, by the angelic 
deliverance, which was by this time well known about the temple, 

27, 28. We have now a very lively and graphic description of the 
arraignment and trial of the apostles. (27) "And having brought them } 
they placed them in the Sanhedrim, and the high priest asked them, (28) 
saying, Did we not strictly command you not to speak in this name ? And 
behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring 
this man s blood upon us." These words contain two specific charges 
against the apostles, disobedience to the Sanhedrim, and an effort to 
bring upon them the blood of Jesus. 

29-32. To these charges the apostles candidly and fearlessly re- 
spond. (29) " Then Peter and the other apostles answered- and said. 
We ought to obey God rather than men." This answers the first charge. 
They plead guilty, but justify themselves by the authority of God. 
Peter and John had left the Sanhedrim before, with the words, 
"Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken to men more 
than to God, do you judge." Now, as if that question was decided, 
they declare, "We ought to obey God rather than men." They then 
answer the second charge by a restatement of the facts: (30) " The 
God of our fathers has raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hung him 
on a tree. (31) This man has God exalted to his own right hand, a 
Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and remission of 
sins. (32) And we are his witnesses of these tilings, and so is the Holy 
Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him." This was repeat- 
ing, with terrible emphasis, the very thing which was charged against 
them as a crime. 

In the declaration that Jesus had been exalted a Prince and a 
Savior, " to grant repentance to Israel and remission of sins," it is 
implied that repentance, as well as remission of sins, is in some sense 
granted to men. But to grant repentance can not mean to bestow it 
upon men without an exercise of their own will ; for repentance is 
enjoined upon men as a duty to be performed by them. How, then, 
can that which is a duty to be performed, be said to be granted to 
us? We will readily perceive the answer to this question, by remem- 
bering that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and that it be- 
longs to God to furnish men with the facts which will awaken this 
sorrow. Without revelation, men would never be made to feel that 
sorrow for sin which works repentance; but in the revelation of Jesus 
Christ we are furnished with the chief of these motives, and because 
of this, he is said to grant repentance. 

33. The Sanhedrim had been astonished at the boldness of Peter 
and John on their former trial, but had contented themselves with 
severe threatenings. Now, both their commands and their threats 
having been despised, and the bold innovators daring to defy them 
once more, they lost, for a moment, all the restraint which had been 



ACTS V: 33-39. 



73 



imposed by fear of the multitude. (33) u Now when they heard this, 
they were exasperated, and determined to slay them." 

34-39. At this crisis the madness of the Sadducees was suddenly- 
checked by the prudent counsel of one of the opposite party. The 
Pharisees were less exasperated, because their leading dogma was 
sustained by the apostles, and they saw that any imprudent proceed- 
ings were likely to involve the whole Sanhedrim in trouble, without 
regard to party; therefore Gamaliel interposes his advice. (34) u But 
a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrim, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the 
law, honored by all the people, arose and commanded to put the apostles 
out for a little while." This removal of the prisoners, like that of 
Peter and John before, was designed to prevent them from taking 
encouragement from any admissions which might be made during 
the pending discussion. They were, accordingly, withdrawn. (35) 
"And he said to them, Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you 
are about to do respecting these men : (36) For before these days, Theu- 
das arose, declaring himself to be somebody ; to whom a number of men, 
about four hundred, attached themselves ; who was slain, and all, as 
many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nothing. (37) After 
this man, Judas the Galilean rose up, in the days of the enrollment, and 
drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all, as many 
as obeyed him, were dispersed. (38) And now I say to you, refrain 
from these men, and let them alone ; for if this purpose or this work is 
from men, it will be destroyed; (39) but if it is from God, you are not 
able to destroy it; lest you even be found to fight against God." 

A question has been raised as to whether Luke is not guilty of 
an anachronism in this report o-f Gamaliel's speech, by making him 
refer to a Theudas, who is mentioned by Josephus, and who flourished 
many years later, under the reign of Claudius Caesar. Such a refer- 
ence could not possibly be made by Gamaliel; and if it was made 
by Luke, he is not only guilty of the anachronism, but, what is far 
worse, of giving a false report of Gamaliel's speech. Rather than 
admit a hypothesis involving such consequences in reference to a 
historian of unim peached veracity, we must suppose that some im- 
postor by the name of Theudas did flourish at the time here alluded 
to by Gamaliel. J udas the Galilean is also mentioned by Josephus, 
whose account of him agrees with this given by Gamaliel. The en- 
rollment is most likely the same referred to in Luke ii: 1. 

Upon the fate of these two impostors, Gamaliel bases his advice 
to the Sanhedrim in reference to the apostles. The moral merits of 
this advice may be differently estimated, according to the point of 
view from which we contemplate it. If we regard it as a general 
rule of procedure in reference to religious movements, it must be re- 
garded as mere time-serving policy. Instead of waiting to see whether 
such a movement is going to prove successful or not, before we take 
ground in reference to it, the lover of truth will promptly investigate 
and decide its merits without regard to public opinion. But if we 
regard Gamaliel as only giving a reason why men should not perse- 
cute a cause which they are not prepared to accept, it was certainly 
most judicious advice. When we have decided against a cause, we 
should render a reason for our decision, and then leave it to the 



74 



ACTS V: 40, 42; VI: t 



developments of Providence, well assured that whatever is not from 
God will come to nothing without any violent agency on our part. 
We should also be afraid to resist with violence or passion any 
thing bearing a semblance to truth, lest we fight against God, and be 
ourselves overthrown. 

The last clause in Gamaliel's speech, "Lest you be found even to 
fight against God," indicates a suspicion, on his part, that such a re- 
sult was by no means impossible. In view of the many miracles 
which had been wrought by the apostles, and their miracufbus de- 
liverance from prison the very night before, it is strange that some- 
thing more than a suspicion to this effect did not possess the mind 
of Gamaliel, and of all the Sanhedrim. It was, doubtless, owing to 
serious misgivings on this point, that the embittered Sadducees yielded 
so readily to advice from the opposite party. 

40. There was no opposition to Gamaliel's advice. (40) "And they 
obeyed him ; and having called the apostles* and scourged them, they 
commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go." 
Scourging was so common in the Eoman empire, even of men un- 
tried and uncondemned, and was so common a fate of Christians at 
the time Luke was writing, that he mentions it here rather as a mat- 
ter of course. It is the first time, however, that it was experienced 
by the apostles, and was, probably, harder to endure than it ever was 
afterward. 

41, 42. However painful the scourging was, it did not cause any re- 
sentful manifestations on the part of the sufferers, but they bore it 
cheerfully. (41) 11 Then they departed from the presence of the San- 
hedrim, rejoicing that they were thought worthy to be dishonored for his 
name. (42) And every day, in the temple, and from house to house, they 
ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ." The Sanhedrim had 
now tried both threats and scourging upon the apostles without 
checking their activity, and as there was nothing further for them 
to try but death, which they were not yet prepared to inflict, they re- 
linquished for awhile their efforts. In this first contest, therefore, 
the apostles were completely victorious, and compelled their adversa- 
ries to abandon the field. 

The apostles taught and preached not only publicly in the temple, 
but "from house to house." In this they give an example to the 
ministry of all ages, which is well worthy of imitation. Private in- 
struction and admonition bring the teacher and the taught' into closer 
contact, and secure an individuality of effect not attainable in a public 
assembly. It can not, therefore, be well dispensed with ; but he who 
employs it most diligently will, other things being equal, employ his 
energies most successfully. 

VI: 1. From the preceding account of the struggle between the 
apostles and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the 
internal condition of the Church during the same period. Though 
the mass of the disciples had attained many of the excellencies of 
Christian character, they were still but men, and liable to the par- 
tialities and prejudices of men. This became manifest in a manner 
which at first threatened serious consequences. (1) " Now, in those 
days, the disciples having multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the 



ACTS VI: 2-4. 



75 



Hellenist against the Hebrews, because their widovjs were neglected in 
the daily ministration." The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered 
largely over five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost 
impossible to look after the wants of all with equal care, and some 
unintentional oversight must unavoidably occur. The " daily ministra- 
tion" is undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by 
the brethren, which was made " to every one according as he had 
need." " That it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that 
there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision 
for the needy. The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek 
education, and were so called because of their conformity to the man- 
ners of the Hellenes, as the Greeks were called. Many of them were, 
perhaps, not permanent residents in Jerusalem, but had remained 
there after Pentecost on account of their interest in the new religion. 
They were the more likely to be neglected, because less familiarly 
known to the apostles and their assistants. 

2-4. This unforeseen circumstance suggested to the apostles the 
propriety of instituting a new office in the Church. Though the Holy 
Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional in- 
struction was given only as circumstances required. They were not 
theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to 
which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they 
allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to dic- 
tate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the provisions 
which were made were precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the 
Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles; 
for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, 
ol veurepoi, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-ap- 
pointed officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later 
and unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in 
Jerusalem existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, 
it follows that a Church may now exist under the written teaching 
alone of the same apostles. But seeing, further, that when circum- 
stances required it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all 
Churches among whom similar wants arise should provide themselves 
in the same way. All Churches, however, will inevitably find need 
for such officers as the New Testament authorizes; hence they should 
procure them without unnecessary delay. 

When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted 
promptly. (2) " Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples 
to them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God 
and serve tables. (3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men 
of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may ap- 
point over this business. (4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer 
and the ministry of the word." The alternative with the apostles was 
to "leave," in some degree, "the word of God," and serve the tables 
satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and " continue 
in prayer and the ministry of the word" as uninterruptedly as before. 
They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by choosing 
the latter course. 

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole 



76 ACTS VI: 5, 6. 

" multitude of the disciples" should take part in the selection of these 
officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this 
gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of 
officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by apos- 
tolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description. They 
must be men of "good repute; " not merely good men, but men whose 
goodness was accredited among the brethren. 

They must also be men who were "full of the Holy Spirit." Whether 
this means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely 
that they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult 
to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had 
been wrought, so far as we know, by any but the apostles, and that, im- 
mediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears "doing 
great wonders and miracles among the people," seem to indicate that 
they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but re- 
ceived miraculous powers when the hands*of the apostles were laid 
upon them. On the other hand, the expression, "full of the Holy 
Spirit," generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the 
Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain 
that when a disciple was "full of the Spirit" in either sense, the 
religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can be 
required in a candidate for the same office at the present day. 

The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily 
identified with that of the deacon as described in the third chapter of 
First Timothy. The seven are not styled dcaicovoi, deacons, but they were 
selected to attend to the daily dianovia, (verse 1) and their service is 
expressed by the verb SiaKoveu, (verse 2) the same which expresses the 
duty of the deacons in 1 Tim. iii: 10-13. The chief duty for which 
they were appointed, was "to serve tables" diaicoveiv rpairs^aig- ; yet this 
duty need not prevent them from discharging any other functions for 
which they were qualified, and for which they could find time. God 
exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to us, and has 
appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the humblest dis- 
ciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon after in the 
front rank of the defenders of the faith ; while another, after the dis- 
persion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses both the 
Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman. Those who deny to deacons, 
at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction which is in 
direct conflict with the word of Cod. As to the title evangelist, after- 
ward applied to Philip, see the "Commentary on Acts," xxi : 8. 

5, 6. The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvi- 
ous want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance 
with it. (5) "And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they 
chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and 
Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a prose- 
lyte of Antioch, (6) whom they placed before the apostles. And having 
prayed, they laid their hands on them." It is a remarkable proof of the 
generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek names, 
indicating that they were selected from the very party whence the mur- 
muring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the Hel- 
lenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, nor any jealousy toward 



ACTS VI: 7. 



77 



ou who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your 

ands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So gen- 
erous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men. 

All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their 
appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned 
in the New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that 
they were subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke 
selected, for his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were 
the actors. Of Nicolas, it is said that he was " a proselyte of An- 
tioch," which means that he was a Grentile who had been proselyted 
to Judaism before he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even 
at this early period, the apostles had no objection to the reception 
of Grentiles, provided they had been circumcised. 

Stephen is specially described as "a man full of faith and of the 
Holy Spirit," not because the others were destitute of these excel- 
lencies; for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that 
they should be men "full of the Holy Spirit." But if the seven were 
distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been 
distinguished in the same way among the seven. 

The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been 
a subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to 
impart miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the 
ceremony of their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often 
conferred by the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, 
to say the least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but 
the context forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of 
the ceremony. The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one 
thing, and they themselves proposed to do another. The multitude 
were to " look out" the men, "whom," say the apostles, "we may ap- 
point over this business." The part performed by the apostles was 
their appointment to office. But all the apostles did was to pray and 
lay on their hands; hence, this was the ceremony of their appoint- 
ment. It stands upon record as a precedent, and should be complied 
with in similar cases. The fact that men can not now confer a mi- 
raculous gift by laying on hands, does not relieve them from the 
obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of appointment to office. 

The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give 
no trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the 
Church were the officials on this occasion, and so, according to the 
precedent, should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets 
one in order, Should lay hands on its officers. When there are pe- 
culiar circumstances not anticipated by the precedent, they should 
be provided for according to the wisdom of those concerned, being 
careful not to violate the precedent. The example of the apostles 
is binding in this, as in all cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, 
or to the condition of the early Churches. 

7. The appointment of the seven over the business of daily min- 
istration to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency 
in the organization of the Church. The more efficient organization 
gave greater efficiency to the labors of all. (7) u And the word of 
God increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly 



78 



ACTS VI: 8. 



multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the 
faith.' 1 This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the 
priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved 
by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested 
in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The 
peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of re- 
ligion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete 
forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new 
truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it 
is ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the 
effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem. 

The expression used concerning these priests, that they became 
"obedient to the faith," is worthy of notice as implying that there is 
something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered 
in the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it. 
But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as Lord; 
hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith. It 
begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious 
life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship 
conferred upon him was "for obedience to the faith among all na- 
tions."* Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who " obey not 
the gospel," whatever may be their faith, will be "destroyed from the 
presence of the Lord and the glory of his power."f 

There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because 
of its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. 
It is said " The word of God increased," and the specifications are, 
that the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great 
multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such in- 
cidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: "There was a 
precious season of grace;" "The Lord was present in his saving 
power;" "A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit," etc. So great a 
departure from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure 
from scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception 
that conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, 
they are likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. 
But Luke, who had no such conception, saw in the increase of the dis- 
ciples an increase of the word of God; by which he means not an 
increase in the quantity of revelation, but in its effects. The more 
favorable circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the 
cessation of recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better or- 
ganization, gave greater weight to the word that was preached, and 
greater success was the consequence. 

8. We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors 
and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is 
thus briefly sketched: (8) " Now Stephen, full of faith and of poiver, 
did great wonders and signs among the people." The power by which he 
wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was " full 
of faith." This accords with the fact already observed, (iii : 16,) that 
the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spirit- 
ual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith. 

* Kom. i : 5. t 2 Thess - i : 8 > 9. 



ACTS VI: 9, 10. 



79 



9, 10. The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than 
that of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to 
him more especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, 
and one who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The op- 
ponents of the gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first 
persecution occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John 
in Solomon's Portico; the second, upon the triumphs which followed 
the death of Ananias and Sapphira; and the third now springs up 
upon the appearance of new advocates of the faith. (9) " Then there 
arose certain persons from the synagogue called the synagogue oj the 
Freedmen and Oyrenians, and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing 
with Stephen; (10) and they were not able to withstand the wisdom and 
the spirit by which he spoke. 1 ' 

The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been de- 
terred, by fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own 
ranks, from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and 
scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, 
by superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into 
silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all foreign- 
born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from 
Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north 
of Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the 
last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus. 

The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun* identifies 
the attacking party as Pharisees ; for he was a Pharisee, the son of a 
Pharisee, and "brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel."f The 
violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been checked, in part, by 
the counsel of Gamaliel — the great teacher of the Pharisees — the apos- 
tles had gone on in their ministry, not merely proclaiming the resur- 
rection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part of their commission, 
u teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever Christ had com- 
manded." This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the brunt of 
attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions were di- 
rectly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The conse- 
quence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested 
before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and 
talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary culture 
and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great confidence to 
disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners, were natu- 
rally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born dispu- 
tants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon found 
himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all. 

This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their 
cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed 
no opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been 
convinced with those which learning and ingenuity might frame 
against them. But now they were to hear both sides of the great 
question presented, with the odds of number, learning, and social po- 
sition all on the side of their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, 
* See vii : 6, 8 below t xxii : 3 > xxiii i 6. 



80 



ACTS VI: 11-14. 



and it needs no very vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxi- 
ety with which the disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their 
fondest hopes were realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen 
had all the facts and the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that 
" they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he 
spoke." By the "spirit by which he spoke," I suppose Luke refers 
to the Holy Spirit, who supplied him with whatever knowledge and 
wisdom he may have lacked. 

In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance 
with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their 
example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the 
necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the 
truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with 
a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to 
resist him. 

11-14. When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they 
always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Ste- 
phen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find 
their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they 
pursued in the case of Jesus. (11) " Then they suborned men, who 
said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses 
and God." This was the indictment upon which the further proceed- 
ings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes. 

(12) u And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, 
and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, 

(13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak 
blasphemous words against this holy place and the law : (14) For we 
have heard him saying, that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, 
and change the customs which Moses delivered to us." 

This is the first time that "the people" are represented as taking 
part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the " fear 
of the people" had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which 
renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sad- 
ducees, who had conducted, those persecutions, had but little popular 
influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the 
authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. 
The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in 
circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against 
a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled 
them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a 
strong popular feeling in their own favor. 

The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy 
"against Moses and God," otherwise expressed, "against this holy 
place, and the law." The change of phraseology arises from the fact 
that the temple and law were the visible representatives of Moses and 
of God. The specifications under this charge were these: "We have 
heard him saying that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change 
the customs which Moses delivered to us." It is quite likely that Ste- 
phen was guilty of the specifications; but they fell very far short of the 
crime of blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, 
he was really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination 



ACTS VI: 15; VII: 1. 



81 



which Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored 
God by receiving him whom God had sent. 

15. As Stephen stood before the Sanhedrim, thus falsely and hypo- 
critically accused, and fully aware of a determination to condemn him 
without regard to evidence or justice, he could but remember the simi- 
lar accusation of Jesus, of Peter and John, then of all the apostles; 
and his heart must have swelled at the thought of being identified with 
them in suffering. The baseness of his persecutors — who, under pre- 
tense of zeal for Moses and the law, were violating the one and dishon- 
oring the other, by seeking the lives of the only men who believed his 
words — must have filled him with indignation, while love for the truth 
which he was defending, and for the Eedeemer for whom he was suf- 
fering, was kindled afresh, and the power of a glorious hope inspired 
him with the most invincible courage. Emotions so intense and so 
lofty spread a glow upon his countenance which attracted the attention 
of the whole audience. (15) 11 And all who sat in the Sanhedrim, look- 
ing earnestly upon him, saw his face as if it were the face of an angel." 
There is no need to suppose any thing supernatural in his appearance, 
such as a halo of light enveloping his countenance; for a countenance 
naturally fine and expressive, when lit up by emotions so intense and 
heavenly as those which must then have swelled the breast of Stephen, 
would be sufficient to suggest such a comparison. If there were any 
brethren present, with what tearful delight they must then have gazed 
upon the hero of faith ! And if any of the members of the Sanhedrim 
were still capable of nobler sentiments, how intense must have been 
their agitation ! The trial proceeds : 

VII: 1. 11 Then said the high priest, Are these things so f " Stephen 
responds in a long and powerful discourse. 

There is great diversity of opinion among commentators, as to the 
logical bearing and connection of this discourse. We would naturally 
expect to find in it — if we regard it as properly a defense — a formal 
response to the charge which had been preferred. But it contains no 
direct answer to any of the specifications. He neither admits nor 
denies what was charged in reference to the destruction of the temple 
by J esus and the changing of the customs delivered by Moses ; though 
his silence may be regarded as an admission that the witnesses had 
spoken the truth on these points. Neither does he formally answer to 
the charge of blasphemy against Moses and against God, or against 
the holy temple and the law. The only thing in the discourse that 
has even an indirect bearing in this way, is his frequent reference to 
facts contained in the writings of Moses, which has been understood, 
by some commentators, as intended to indicate a degree of respect for 
Moses inconsistent with a disposition to speak blasphemy against him. 
But if such was his purpose, it is unaccountable that he should have 
pursued so indirect a course, instead of distinctly avowing the senti- 
ments he intended to indicate. Again, this supposition can not account 
for the introduction of so many facts connected with the persecution 
of various individuals. 

The best statement of the drift of the discourse, I think, is this : The 
charge against him was hypocritically preferred, and his judges had 
no intention to investigate it, but were using it merely as an excuse for 



82 



ACTS VII: 2-8. 



his predetermined condemnation to death. They were now giving him 
somewhat the form of a trial, to keep up appearances before the peo- 
ple. Under such circumstances, Stephen knew that it would be useless 
to offer a formal defense; and, therefore, he does not undertake it. 
He sees, however, that his persecutors were identifying themselves, by 
their proceedings, with the unbelieving and persecuting portion of their 
forefathers, and he determines to make them stand forth to the people 
in this their true position. In prosecuting this purpose he selects his ma- 
terial from the writings of Moses, and shows that his accusers are with 
the persecuting party, while his Master and himself are side by side 
with Moses and others whom they had persecuted. Thus he hurls 
back upon them, and fastens on them, effectually, the charge which 
they had falsely preferred against him. 

2-4. We will now take up the different sections of the discourse, 
treating each separately, and showing their connected bearing upon 
his main purpose. Before exhibiting the manner in which Moses was 
treated by the ancestors of his audience, he first shows that the mission 
on which Moses came was a subject of prophesy: thus indicating, at 
the outset, an analogy between it and that of Christ. To do this, he 
must begin with Abraham, to whom this prophesy was first given ; but 
his reference to Abraham is only for the historical introduction of his 
main theme. (2) "And he said : Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. 
The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Meso- 
potamia, before he dwelt in Haran, (3) and said to him, Get thee out from 
thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I will 
show thee. (4) ^Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt 
in Haran : and thence, after his father died, he removed into this land in 
which you now dwell." 

5-8. Having now introduced Abraham, and brought him into the 
land of Canaan, Stephen quotes the prophesy, connected with the ful- 
fillment of which he is to find the chief points of his argument. (5) 
" And he gave him no inheritance in it, not a footprint : and he promised 
to give it for a possession to him and to his seed after him, when as yet he 
had no child. (6) But God spoke thus : That his seed should sojourn in 
a strange land, and they should bring them into bondage, and afflict them 
four hundred years. (7) And the nation to whom they shall be in bond- 
age I will judge, said God, and after these things they shall come forth, 
and serve me in this place. (8) And he gave him the covenant of circum- 
cision ; and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day ; and 
Isaac, Jacob ; and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs." 

The period of four hundred years is taken by Stephen from Gene- 
sis xv : 13, where God expresses himself, in round terms, of a period 
which was, more accurately, four hundred and thirty years, as we 
find in Exodus xii : 40, 41. This was not the period of their actual 
sojourn in Egypt; but, as we learn from Paul, (Galatians iii: 17,) and 
from the genealogical tables in Genesis and Exodus, it extended from 
the call of Abraham to the departure from Egypt. 

9-16. The speaker next proceeds to recount the circumstances which 
brought the people down into Egypt, in order that the rejection of 
Joseph, and the final salvation of the whole family through him, 
might stand out before his hearers, and be made to bear upon his final 



ACTS VII: 9-24. 



83 



conclusion. (9) 11 And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into 
Egypt. And God was with him, (10) and delivered him out of all his 
afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king 
of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. (11) 
Now, there came a famine on all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great 
affliction ; and our fathers found no sustenance. (12) But Jacob, having 
heard that there was grain in Egypt, sent out our fathers the first time. 
(13) And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and 
Joseph's kindred was made known to Pharaoh. (14) Then Joseph sent 
and called to him his father Jacob and all his kindred, seventy-five souls. 
(15) And Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, (16) 
and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulcher which Jacob 
bought for a sum of money from the sons of Emmor, the father of tSychem." 

There is a numerical discrepancy between Moses and Stephen, in ref- 
erence to the number of Jacob's family when they went into Egypt. 
Stephen here makes them seventy-five, while Moses states them at 
seventy, including Joseph's family, and Jacob himself.* The Sep- 
tuagint translation of Genesis agrees with Stephen. Various methods 
of reconciling these statements are proposed, of which the only satis- 
factory one is this. The number given by Moses includes all "who 
came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives."f The number 
given by Stephen must, then, include five of their wives, who were, 
probably, all that were then living. The translators of the Septua- 
gint, having some historical evidence, now lost to us, that five of their 
wives went with them, saw fit to fill up the number in their transla- 
tion, and Stephen followed their enumeration. 

It was Jacob, and not Abraham, who purchased the sepulcher from 
the sons of Emmor, as is certain from the history given in Grenesia 
xxxiii: 19, 20; yet it is attributed to Abraham here in the common 
version, and most of the Greek manuscripts. It is far more likely, 
however, that the manuscripts should err, m a case of this kind, than 
that the error should have been committed. by Stephen or by Luke. 
I have, therefore, not hesitated to insert the name of Jacob, instead of 
Abraham, in the text. Dr. Bloomfield says, " The best critics are of 
the opinion that Abraham is spurious." 

17-29. From this glance at the leading points in the history of 
Joseph, Stephen advances to the case, of Moses, showing that hia 
brethren rejected him in like manner, and were also finally delivered 
by him. (17) u But when the time of the promise of which God had 
sworn to Abraham was drawing near, the people increased and were 
multiplied in Egypt, (18) until another king arose who knew not Joseph. 

(19) The same dealt craftily with our kindred, and afflicted our fathers, so 
that they cast out their young children, in order that they might not live. 

(20) In which time Moses was born, and was exceedingly beautiful. He 
was nourished in his father s house three months. (21) And when he 
was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her 
own son. (22) And Moses was educated in all the learning of the 
Egyptians, and wets powerful in words and in deeds. (23) And when 
he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to look after his breth- 
ren, the children of Israel. (24) And seeing one of them suffer wr07ig } 

* See Gen. xlvi : 26, 27. t (ten, xlvi : 26. 



84 



ACTS VII: 25-37. 



he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian. 
(25) Now he thought that his brethren would understand that God would, 
by his hand, give them salvation ; but they did not understand. (26) The 
next day he appeared to them as they were fighting, and would have 
brought them to peace, saying, Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong 
one another ? (27) But he who was wronging his neighbor thrust him 
away, saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge over us ? (28) Do 
you wish to kill me as you killed that Egyptian yesterday f (29) Then 
Moses fied at this word, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian 
where he begot two sons. 1 ' 

In the rejection of Moses by his countrymen, when he was seeking 
to deliver them from bondage, according to the promise of God, 
Stephen has before the minds of the Sanhedrim another case bearing 
upon his final conclusion. It is true, that as yet they could not an- 
ticipate the use he intended to make of it, but the obscurity of his 
design awakened their curiosity, and rendered their mortification 
the more intense when at last it was suddenly developed. If they could 
have anticipated it, they would have stopped his mouth at the begin- 
ning. 

30-37. There were other incidents in the life of Moses fully as 
much to his purpose as this ; and to these he proceeds to advert. 
(30) " And when forty years were completed, there appeared to him, in 
the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire 
in a bush. (31) When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight, and as 
he drew near to observe it, the voice of the Lord came to him. (32) I 
am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and did not dare to observe 
it. (33) And the Lord said to him, Put ojf thy shoes from thy feet; 
for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. (34) I have surely 
seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their 
groaning, and have come down to deliver them ; and now, come, I will send 
thee into Egypt (35) The same Moses whom they rejected, saying, Who 
made thee a ruler and a judge ? the same did God send to be a ruler and 
a deliverer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him at the bush. 
(36) He led them out, after doing wonders and signs in the land of 
Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (37) This 
is the same Moses who said to the children of Israel, A prophet shall the 
Lord your God raise up to you from your brethren like me; him shall 
ye hear." In this passage, the speaker has not only presented, in a 
most emphatic manner, the contrast between the rejection of Moses 
by his brethren, and his appointment by God to the very office of 
ruler and deliverer, which they refused him, but has also made a fur- 
ther advance toward his final purpose, by introducing the prophesy 
uttered by this same Moses concerning the Messiah. This prophesy 
was still more apposite, because it refuted the charge that he had 
spoken blasphemy against Moses, in saying that Christ would change 
the customs appointed by him. If Moses himself foretold the coming 
of a successor who should supersede him, he alone pays proper respect 
to Moses who submits to his successor. 

38-40. To keep prominent the ill treatment received by Moses at 
the hands of the people, the speaker proceeds to note their conduct in 



ACTS VII: 38-50. 



85 



the wilderness. (38) " This is he that was in the congregation in the 
wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with 
our fathers, who received the living oracles to give to us. (39) Whom 
our fathers were not willing to obey, but thrust him from them, and in 
their hearts turned back into Egypt, (40) saying to Aaron, Make us Gods 
who shall go before us ; for this Moses, who led us out of the land of 
Egypt, we know not what is become of him." This instance of their rejec- 
tion of Moses was much more flagrant than the first, seeing that it 
occurred immediately after the most splendid manifestations of Grod's 
presence with him ; and that, in the very words which they addressed 
to Aaron, they acknowledged that it was he who had brought them out 
of Egypt. These circumstances also render more striking the analogy 
which Stephen is about to develop between him and Jesus ; for he also 
had been rejected, notwithstanding the admission, by his enemies, that 
he had wrought miracles. 

41-43. Stephen next shows that the same people who so often re- 
jected the servants of Grod, likewise rejected God himself. (41) "They 
made a calf in those days, and brought sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced 
in the works of their own hands. (42) And God turned, and gave them 
up to serve the host of heaven, even as it is written in the book of the 
prophets, 0 house of Israel, have you offered to me slain beasts and sacri- 
fices during forty years in the wilderness ? (43) You have even taken 
up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures 
which you made, to worship them;- and I will carry you away beyond 
Babylon." With this brief glance at the subsequent fate of the people 
who had so often rejected their deliverers, covering a period of many 
centuries, and terminating with their captivity in Babylon, Stephen 
concludes his summary of facts; but, previous to the final application, 
which he saw would raise a storm in the Assembly, he has a few 
words in reference to the temple. 

44-50. Instead of either admitting or denying the charge of blas- 
phemy against the temple, he undertakes to show the true religious 
value of that building. This he does, by first alluding to the movable 
and perishable nature of the tabernacle, which preceded the temple, 
and then, by showing, from the prophets, that the presence of Grod is 
not limited to temples made with hands. (44) " Our fathers had the 
tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, saying to 
Moses that he should make it according to the pattern which he had seen ; 
(45) which also, our fathers, having received, brought in with Joshua 
within the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face 
of our fathers until the days of David, (46) who found favor before God, 
and desired to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon 
built him a house. (48) Yet the Most High dwells not in temples made 
with hands, as says the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and the earth 
my footstool. What house 10 ill you build for me? says the Lord; or what 
is my place of rest? (50) Did not my hand make all these things f" 
By this statement, the speaker intrenches himself behind undisputed 
facts of their own history, and the sentiments of their own prophets, 
in reference to the temple, and is now ready to spring upon them the 
whole concealed power of the carefully-arranged facts from the life of 
Moses and of Joseph. 



86 



ACTS VII: 51-60. 



51-53. As Joseph, the divinely-selected savior of his brethren, had 
been sold by those brethren into slavery; and as Moses, divinely se- 
lected to deliver Israel from bondage, was at first rejected by them to 
become a sojourner in Midian, and was then sent back by the God of 
their fathers to be rejected by them again and again, notwithstanding 
the most indisputable manifestations of God's presence with him; and 
as all the prophets had met with a similar fortune, so, now, the final 
prophet, of whom Moses and all the prophets had spoken, had been 
rejected and slain by the sons of these persecuting fathers. The com- 
bined power of all these facts and analogies is now concentrated in 
the closing paragraph of the speech, and expressed in these terrific 
words: (51) " Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are 
always resisting the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (52) 
Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute ? They murdered 
those who announced before concerning the coming of the Just One, of 
whom now you have been the betrayers and murderers ; (53) who received 
the law through ranks of angels, and have not kept it.' 1 

The pent-up fires which had burned within the breast of Stephen 
from the beginning of these unjust proceedings, and had given an an- 
gelic glow to his features at the beginning of his speech, had been 
carefully smothered and controlled during the progress of his argu- 
ment; but now that the restraints of the argument were withdrawn, 
they had burst forth in these scorching and blazing words. 

54-60. The exasperation of the Sanhedrim was the more intense, 
from the fact that the denunciation hurled upon them was not a sud- 
den burst of passion, but the deliberate and sustained announcement 
of a just judgment. They had not been able to resist, in debate, the 
wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke, and now their efforts to 
convict him of crime had recoiled terribly upon their own heads. 
They had no course now left them, but the usual resort of unprinci- 
pled partisans when totally discomfited, and to this they rushed with 
fearful rapidity. (54) " When they heard these things, they were exasper- 
ated, and gnashed their teeth upon him. (55) But he, being full of the 
Holy Spirit, looked steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and 
Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (56) and said, Behold, I see the 
heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. 
(57) Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and 
rushed upon him with one accord, (58) and cast him out of the city, and 
stoned him. And the witnesses laid off their garments at the feet of a 
young man called Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen, calling on the 
Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. (60) And he kneeled 
down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. 
And when he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to 
his death. 11 

This was a strange way for a court to break up; the whole body of 
seventy grave rabbis, whose official duty it was to watch for the faith- 
ful and regular proceedings of law, leaving their seats, and rushing 
with the wild mob, amid hideous outcries and tumultuous rage, to the 
sudden execution of a prisoner absolutely untried and uncondemned. 
But the maddest pranks ever played upon this mad earth are wit- 
nessed when wicked men set themselves in uncompromising opposi- 



ACTS VII: 60. 



87 



tion to God and his holy truth. So uniformly has this been true in 
history, that, at the present day^ when such opposition is to be sus- 
tained, whether on great or insignificant occasions, no well-informed 
man expects aught else than disregard of all the rules of justice and 
propriety. If the infuriated scenes which have been enacted under 
such circumstances, in the history of Christianity, could be dramatic- 
ally represented, the performance might be appropriately styled, The 
Madman's Drama. 

The vision witnessed by Stephen, while the J ews were gnashing their 
teeth upon him, need not be understood as a real opening of the heav- 
ens, so that the things within them could be seen by the human eye, 
but only a representation to his eyes, such as those granted to John 
in the Isle of Patmos. It was vouchsafed both for his own encourage- 
ment in the hour of death, and that the remembrance of the words in 
which he described it, and the hue of countenance with which he 
gazed upon it, might remain indelibly impressed upon the minds of 
those who were present. There was at least one in the audience upon 
whom, we have reason to believe, this impression was deep and last- 
ing. The young man Saul never forgot it; but, long afterward, when 
bending under the weight of many years, he makes sad mention of the 
part he took in these dreadful proceedings.* 

The death of Stephen was an event of most thrilling interest to the 
young Church, and well deserves the large space allotted to it by the 
historian. The disciples had embarked, with all their interests, both 
temporal and eternal, in the cause of one, who, though he proved 
himself mighty to deliver, while present with them, had now gone 
away beyond the reach of vision, and no longer held personal con- 
verse with them. They had struggled on faithfully thus far, and, amid 
many tears, some stripes, and much affliction, they had still found a 
deep satisfaction of soul in his service. It was demonstrated that 
their faith could sustain them in life, even amid very bitter trials; but 
it was not yet known how it would sustain them in the hour of death. 
No one of their number had yet tried the dread reality, and no man 
can now tell how much their spirits may have wavered in the pros- 
pect, and inclined backward toward the faith of their fathers, distrust- 
ful of the new arm of salvation. How great the strength, therefore, 
and how sweet the consolation imparted to every heart, when the first 
who died was so triumphant in the pangs of death! After witnessing 
the scene, they could go onward in their tear-dimmed course of suffer- 
ing, without one fear or care for that within the grave, or beyond it. 
At the late day in which we live, which has been preceded by the happy 
death of millions of Christians, and which is often yet made deeply 
glad by their triumphs in the trying hour, we are not able to appre- 
ciate the eagerness with which the first disciples drank in the consola- 
tions of this glorious death. It was a fortuitous and most fitting 
preparation for the fiery ordeal through which the Church were 
immediately afterward called to pass. 

We omit any notice of the part taken by Saul in this shocking 
tragedy till we come to comment on the ninth chapter, where his 
career becomes the leading theme of the historian. 

* 1 Tim. i : 1-13. 



88 



ACTS VIII : 1-4. 



VIII: 1-4. The enemies of the disciples had now tried and ex- 
hausted all the ordinary methods of opposing the truth. Under the 
leadership of the Sadducees they had tried, first threatening, then im- 
prisonment, and then stripes. They were about to follow this with 
the death of the twelve, when the milder counsels of the yet unexas- 
perated Pharisees had prevailed, and resort was had to discussion. 
But the cause which had prospered under the imprisonment and 
scourging of its chief advocates bounded forward with astonishing 
rapidity when the strength of its plea was brought before the people in 
open discussion. Its learned opponents were completely discomfited. 
Foiled in their efforts, the Pharisees were now ready to unite with the 
Sadducees in a common persecution. They selected Stephen as the 
first victim, because he had been their most formidable opponent in 
the discussion. They had determined to proceed in their bloody pur- 
pose with the forms of law; but, in a moment of frenzy, they had 
broken loose from all restraint, and dispatched their victim with the 
violence of a mob. Once embarked in this mad career, nothing less 
than the utter extermination of the Church could satisfy them. Hence 
the historian proceeds to inform us that, (1) " On that day there arose 
a great persecution against the Church in Jerusalem, and they were all 
scattered abroad through the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the 
aj)Ostles. (2) Yet devout men carried Stephen to burial, and made great 
lamentation over him. (3) But Saul wasted the Church; entering into 
the houses, and dragging forth both men and women, he committed them 
to prison. (4) Nevertheless, they who were scattered abroad went every- 
where preaching the word." 

The grief of a community at the loss of a good man is more in- 
tense when he falls in the performance of some part characteristic of 
his life. But it is most intense when death, at such a moment, is pre- 
cipitated by injustice and violence. It is not surprising, therefore, that 
the burial of Stephen should have been attended with " great lamenta- 
tion." The perilous condition of the congregation — some of whom were 
being hourly cast into prison, and most of whom were contemplating 
flight — could but deepen their grief. The funeral services were soon 
followed by a general dispersion of the disciples. With much bitter- 
ness of heart, they left behind them their native city and their indi- 
vidual homes, to seek refuge among strangers. But the bitterness of 
their temporal loss must have been slight, to the truly devoted among 
them, compared with the disappointment of their brightening hopes 
concerning the speedy triumph of the gospel. How bitter, too, must 
have been the disappointment of the twelve, at suddenly finding them- 
selves left alone in the great city, the congregation of many thousand 
disciples whom they had collected — all scattered and gone ! While 
they thought of the brethren and sisters fleeing for life, and of the 
many already languishing in prison, they could but have regarded 
their own lives as in imminent danger. But, supposing that the time 
for which Jesus had limited their stay in Jerusalem had not yet ex- 
pired, they courageously stood at their post, regardless of consequences. 

The present distress and flight of the disciples had resulted,_ not 
from the mere fact that they believed in Jesus, but more especially 
from the zeal and persistency with which they pushed his claims upon 



ACTS VIII: 5-11. 



S3 



the attention of others. Seeing that they had now lost every thing, by 
this course, a worldly prudence would have taught them to be, thence- 
forward, more quiet and Unobtrusive in the propagation of their faith. 
Even the interests of the cause itself, which had been jeopardized by 
the boldness with which Stephen had attacked the prevailing iniquity, 
might have been urged in favor of a change of policy. But this time- 
serving expediency was reserved for the disgrace of a later age. It 
never took large possession of the heroic hearts of the early disciples. 
On the contrary, the scattered disciples " went everywhere preaching the 
wordy The result was the rapid spread of the gospel into the cities 
of Judea, and even into Samaria. Thus, the apparent ruin of the 
single Church in Jerusalem resulted in the springing up of many 
Churches throughout the province — proving, for the thousandth time 
in the world's history, how impotent is the hand of man when fighting 
against God. As the blows of the blacksmith's hammer upon the 
heated iron scatter the scintillations in every direction, so the effort of 
wicked Jews to crush the Church of Christ only scattered its light 
more widely abroad. » 

5. Among the many who now went everywhere preaching the word, 
the historian chooses to relate here the labors of only one. (5) "Then 
Philip went down into the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them." 
This Philip was one of the seven, and his name stands in the list next 
to that of Stephen.* The reason why Luke selects his labors for this 
place in the history, is because he was the first to preach the gospel 
in Samaria. Jesus had commanded them to testify first in Jerusalem; 
then in Judea ; then in Samaria ; and then to the uttermost part of 
the earth. Luke follows them in the regular prosecution of this pro- 
gramme. 

6-11. When Philip first entered the city of Samaria, the public mind 
was in a condition most unfavorable to the reception of the gospel. 
The practice of magical arts was quite common among the Jews and 
Samaritans of that age; and the masses of the people of all nations 
were very superstitious in reference to them. At the time now referred 
to, the people of Samaria were so completely under the influence of 
a magician, that one less bold than Philip would have had no hope 
of success in preaching the gospel to them. But he had confidence 
in the power of the gospel, and commenced his labors with a firm 
purpose. His success was far beyond what could have been antici- 
pated. (6) u And the multitudes, with one accord, attended to the things 
spoken by Philip, in hearing and seeing the miracles which he wrought. 
(7) For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who 
had them, and many, paralyzed and lame, were healed. (8) And there 
was great joy in that city. (9) But a certain man named Simon was in 
that city befr re, practicing magic and astonishing the people of Samaria, 
saying that he himself was some great one : (10) to whom they all gave 
attention, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great 
power of God. (11) And they gave attention to him because he had as- 
tonished them with magic arts for a long time.^ 

We are here introduced to another case of conversion, with a very 
brief account of the means and influences by which it was effected. 

* Acta vi : 5. 

8 



90 



ACTS VIII: 12. 



These demand careful consideration. It is in order that the perfect 
adaptation of the gospel means employed by Philip may the more 
strikingly appear, that Luke is particular to state the previous mental 
condition of the people. They had been so much astonished by the 
magic arts of Simon, that the prevailing conviction was. " This man 
is the great power of God." The dreamy genius of Neander has caught 
up some vague tradition of the fathers concerning a supposed theoso- 
phy involved in this expression ; and, by a common sympathy in mys- 
ticism, rather than by the force of his reasoning, has transmitted it to 
many recent commentators. But the sober judgment, content with 
more natural conclusions, finds in it only the impression which such 
arts as Simon practiced usually make upon a superstitious multitude. 
The tricks of his legerdemain they supposed to be exhibitions of divine 
power. The first work for Philip to do was to prostrate the influence 
of Simon by undeceiving the people. 

To accomplish this object, he has recourse to the power of the Holy 
Spirit. This power, addressed to the eye in the healing of lameness 
and paralysis, and the casting out of demons ; and to the ear, in preach- 
ing Christ to them, soon arrested the attention of the multitude. 
There was a prompt and universal decision in the public mind in 
favor of the miracles wrought by Philip, and against the pretensions 
of Simon. What was the distinction between these miracles and 
Simon's astonishing tricks, which led to so prompt a decision, we 
are not able to say, because we know not what these tricks were. 
Suffice it to say, that this single incident should put to silence forever 
that species of skepticism which resolves all the miracles of Christ and 
the apostles into occult arts and optical illusions; for here are these 
arts, in their most delusive form, brought into direct conflict with 
apostolic miracles ; and so palpable is the distinction, that it is at once 
discovered and acknowledged by the whole multitude. 

12. The unmistakable reality of the miracles wrought by Philip 
convinced the people that he was attended by the power of God ; and 
this was enough to make them acknowledge the authority of God in 
what he communicated to them. In order that men may believe the 
Gospel, it is only necessary that they believe it to be, in reality, the 
word of God. But the Holy Spirit convinced them that what they 
heard was the word of God, by attending it with a sensible demonstra- 
tion of the power of God. That they believed was but the natural 
result of what they saw and heard. (12) u But when they believed 
Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name 
of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both men and women." Being con- 
vinced that they heard the word of God, they believed it because it 
was the word; and, for the same reason, they yielded to its authority. 
Their obedience was not the result of any inherent power in the word, 
apart from its authorship ; for if it were believed to be the word of 
man, it would have no authority, and no power. All the authority 
and power which are in it, therefore, result from the belief that God is 
its author. This belief was effected, in the present instance, by the 
Holy Spirit, through miraculous attestations; hence, the whole change 
wrought in the parties may be styled the work of the Holy Spirit. The 
simple facts of the kingdom over which Christ was reigning, thus 



ACTS VIII : 13-17. 



91 



attested, were set forth before the people, and, upon belief of these, 
attended by a willingness to comply with their requirements, they 
were immersed without delay. This was but a faithful execution of 
the commission, which says, " He that believeth and is immersed shall 
be saved." 

13. The most signal triumph achieved on this occasion was that 
over Simon himself. Luke gives it the prominence of a separate 
statement, in these words: (13) "And Simon himself also believed, and 
when he was immersed he continued with Philip, and, beholding the 
signs and great miracles which were done, he was astonished." The 
commentators nearly all agree that Simon's faith was not real, but 
feigned; and that the statement that he believed is made according 
to the appearance, and not according to the reality. They urge that 
subsequent developments prove the insincerity of his professions, and 
compel us to adopt this conclusion. It must be confessed, that at the 
time Philip might have been deceived by him; but this could not be 
said of Luke, who wrote subsequent to all the developments in the 
case. If his object was to describe the event as it appeared to Philip, 
he might retain, in the first instance, the mistake of Philip; but we 
would expect, on this supposition, a subsequent correction. No such 
correction, however, is given; neither is there any evidence that Luke 
intended to represent the case as it appeared to Philip. On the con- 
trary, he speaks from his own stand-point, and had all the facts before 
him which we have before us. His statement, therefore, should con- 
trol our judgment, and he says, not that Simon feigned belief, but 
that he believed. We conclude, then, that he did, in the true and 
proper sense of the word, believe. 

Some commentators, disposed to admit the statement that Simon 
believed, still deny the sufficiency of his faith, and urge that it was 
deficient in its object."* But the historian makes no distinction be- 
tween what Simon believed, and what was believed by the Samaritans. 
They "believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
of God, and the name of Jesus Christ;" and Luke adds, without 
qualification, that "Simon himself also believed." He believed, then, 
what Philip preached; he believed the gospel. This conclusion is 
based upon statements too positive and unambiguous to be set aside 
because of any difficulty in reconciling them with facts subsequently 
developed. 

14-17. Before recording the sequel of Simon's case, Luke introduces 
an incident, which, on account of its singularity in New Testament 
history, demands very careful consideration. (14) 11 Now when the apos- 
tles, who were in Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of 
God, they sent to them Peter and John; (15) who, when they were come 
down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. (16) 
For as yet he had fallen upon none of them, only they were immersed into 
the name of the Lord Jesus. (17) Then they laid hands on them, and 
they received the Holy Spirit. 11 

It would be useless to incumber these pages with the many unsat- 
isfactory explanations of this procedure with which commentaries 
abound. We will be content with a simple effort to learn what it 
* See Barnes, in loco. 



92 



ACTS VIII: 17. 



teaches, by a careful consideration of the facts. We notice, then, Jirst, 
That the Samaritans had believed the gospel, and been immersed. 
They were, then, according to the commission, and according to Peter's 
answer on Pentecost, pardoned, and in possession of that "gift of the 
Holy Spirit'* which was promised on condition of repentance and 
immersion.* Second, After they had been in possession of this gift, 
for a period sufficient for the news to reach Jerusalem, the whole 
body of the apostles united in sending to them Peter and John. 
Third, Previous to the arrival of Peter and John, none of them had 
received the miraculous gift of the Spirit, Fourth, Upon the imposi- 
tion of hands by the two apostles, accompanied with prayers, the 
Holy Spirit fell upon them, conferring miraculous gifts. From these 
facts we may draw several conclusions. 1st. Whatever other objects 
may have been contemplated in the mission of the two apostles, such 
as confirming the faith of the disciples, and assisting Philip in his 
labors, it is quite certain that the chief object was the impartation of 
the Holy Spirit. What they did when they arrived in Samaria was 
certainly the object for which they went. But the chief thing which 
they did was to confer the Holy Spirit; hence, this was the chief 
object of their visit. If, however, Philip could have conferred this 
gift, the mission, so far as the chief object of it is concerned, would 
have been useless. This affords strong evidence that the miracu- 
lous gift of the Spirit was bestowed by no human hands except those 
of the apostles. That such was the conclusion of Simon, who was 
an interested witness of this whole proceeding, is evident from the 
proposition he made to Peter, to purchase from him this power. If 
all who had the Spirit could impart it to others, he need only to have 
sought the gift himself, knowing that this would include the power 
to impart it. But his offer to buy this power, and that from an apos- 
tle, shows that the apostles alone possessed the power of imparting 
the Spirit. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in the only 
other instance of the kind recorded in Acts, that of the twelve disciples 
in Ephesus, the same gift was bestowed by the hands of an apostle, f 

The case of Timothy is no exception, as has been supposed, to this 
conclusion; for, although Paul states that the gift which was in him 
was given him through prophesy and u the laying on of the hands of 
the eldership; "J yet he exhorts him, in the second epistle, "Stir up 
the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands."|| 
These two statements can be reconciled either by supposing that Paul 
refers to the gift of office in the former, and the gift of the Spirit in the 
latter; or, that the eldership united with Paul in laying on hands, 
while it was the apostolic part of the service which imparted the 
Spirit, the eldership participating, because at the same time he was 
ordained to the work of an evangelist. 

2d. From the fact that these disciples enjoyed pardon and member- 
ship in the Church before receiving the miraculous gift, it is evident 
that this gift was not necessary to the enjoyment of either of these bless- 
ings. Yet, strange to sa}^ the mystic power of an ultra spiritualism 
has thrown these plain facts into the utmost confusion in the minds of 
eome great men. Witness the following from Neander, in reference to 

* Acts ii ; 38. | Acts xbc : 6. 1 1 Tim. iv : 14. || 2 Tim. i : 6. 



ACTS VIII: 17. 



93 



the condition of the Samaritans previous to the visit of Peter and 
John. " They had not yet attained the consciousness of a vital com- 
munion with the Christ whom Philip preached, nor yet to the con- 
sciousness of a personal divine life. The indwelling of the Spirit was 
as yet something foreign to them, known only by the wonderful opera- 
tions which they saw taking place around them."* This assertion is 
evidently in direct conflict with the commission, and with the promise 
of Peter, that those who would repent and be immersed should receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul also teaches that the indwelling of 
the Spirit is characteristic of all who are Christ's;-)- and certainly all 
are Christ's who have been immersed into the name of Christ, J as had 
been these Samaritans. 

3d. The statement that " as yet he had fallen on none of them, only 
they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus," thrown in par- 
anthetically in explanation of the mission of Peter and John, neces- 
sarily implies that there was no such connection between immersion 
into Christ and the miraculous gift of the Spirit, as that the latter 
might be inferred from the former. This gift, then, was not common 
to the disciples, but was enjoyed only by those to whom it was spe- 
cially imparted. 

Seeing that this extraordinary gift of the Spirit was not necessary 
to the conversion and pardon of these parties, nor to the indwelling of 
the Spirit, it is proper to inquire for what purpose it was bestowed. 
We have already observed, in commenting on Acts i : 8, that the de- 
sign of bestowing it upon the apostles was to endow them, intellectu- 
ally, with power to establish the kingdom, and to furnish miraculous 
attestation of their mission. In general, miracles were designed to in- 
dicate the divine sanction of the procedure with which they were con- 
nected; but when the miracle assumed a mental form, it was designed 
to qualify the party for some mental labor. The young Church in 
Samaria had hitherto been guided by the infallible teaching of Philip, 
and, more recently, by that of Peter and John. But these brethren 
must, in executing their high commission, soon depart to other fields 
of labor. If, in doing so, they should leave the Church in the condi- 
tion in which Peter and John found it, there would be no means left 
them of increasing their knowledge of the new institution, and none 
but their uncertain memories of retaining with accuracy what they 
had already learned. To supply this defect, chiefly, and, secondarily, 
to leave among them the means of convincing unbelievers, the gift of 
inspiration was bestowed — not upon all the disciples, for- this is not 
necessarily implied in the text, but upon a sufficient number of chosen 
individuals. For further information upon the design of such gifts, I 
refer the reader to the twelfth and fourteenth chapters of First Cor- 
inthians. A complete discussion of the subject would belong to a 
commentary on that epistle, rather than to one on Acts. Suffice it 
here to add, that these gifts served as a temporary provision, until the 
facts, doctrine, commandments, and promises of the new covenant 
were committed to writing by inspired men, when the prophesies, 
tongues, and miraculous knowledge of individual teachers gave place 
to the written record. || 
* Planting and Training, f Koin. viii : 9. % Gal. iii : 20-29. |j See 1 Cor. xiii : 8. 



94 



ACTS VIII: 18-23. 



18, 19. In the above remarks upon the incident before us, we have 
assumed that the gift imparted was miraculous. This assumption is 
justified by the fact that it was a matter of observation by those who 
were not recipients of it, as is evident from the next statement of the 
text. (18) u And when Simon saw, that through the laying on of the 
apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, (19) 
saying, Give me also this authority, that on whomsoever I lay hands he 
may receive the Holy Spirit." The form of this proposition shows that 
the Holy Spirit did not come upon these persons directly from heaven, 
as upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, but that it was imparted 
through imposition of hands. This marks the difference between the 
immersion in the Holy Spirit, to which the event on Pentecost belongs, 
and the impartation of the Holy Spirit, to which we refer the present 
case. The latter was effected through human agency; the former 
without it. 

In order to account for the impious proposition of Simon, we must 
remember his former mode of life, and consider the mental habits 
which it must have cultivated. Having been accustomed to the per- 
formance of astonishing tricks as a means of making money, and ta 
the increase of his stock in trade by purchasing the secret of every 
new trick which he met with among his brother magicians, he had 
acquired the habit of looking upon every thing of an astonishing char 
acter with reference to the money which might be in it. When, now 
he saw that by imposition of the apostles' hands the miraculous powei 
of the Spirit was imparted, and remembered that there were many 
even among the disciples, who had not yet received the coveted gift 
he at once perceived that the power to impart it could be made a 
source of great profit. His overruling avarice, mingled with intense 
fondness for popular influence, prompted him to seek this power. 
The blinding influence of these passions prevented him from seeing 
the impropriety either of offering to buy it, or of intending to sell it; 
for certainly, if he had realized the light in which his proposition 
should be regarded, he would not have ventured to make it. 

20-23. Nothing could be more abhorrent to the feelings of an 
apostle than such a proposition. It was well calculated to arouse 
the impulsive spirit of Peter, and his response is marked by his char- 
acteristic vehemence. (20) " But Peter said to him, Your silver go with 
you to perdition, because you have thought to purchase the gift of God 
with money. (21) You have no part nor lot in this matter, for your heart 
is not right in the sight of God. (22) Repent, therefore, of this your wick- 
edness, and pray God, if, perhaps, the purpose of your heart may be for- 
given you. (23) For I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness, 
and the bond of iniquity" This description of Simon's spiritual condi- 
tion shows clearly that he was not, at that time, in a state of mind 
acceptable to God. "The gall of bitterness" is a forcible expression 
of the wretchedness of his condition; and "the bond of iniquity," of 
the dominion which sin exercised over him. His heart was not right 
in the sight of God, and he was in. the way to perdition. The declara- 
tion that he had "no part nor lot in this matter" depends, for its in- 
terpretation, upon the meaning of the expression, "this matter." 
Whether it refers to the gospel, or to the impartation of the Spirit, is 



ACTS VIII: 24 



95 



not altogether certain. In either case, the declaration is true; for it 
is certain that he had no part in the impartation of the Spirit; and 
equally certain that he was then under the condemnation of Cod. 

Whether we are to suppose that Simon's destitute and miserable 
condition was the result of having forfeited the favor of God by fall- 
ing into sin after his immersion, or that his confession and immersion 
had been insincere, so that he had never been pardoned, is not to be 
determined, as many suppose, by the grossness of his present concep- 
tion concerning the Holy Spirit. The question resolves itself into this : 
whether the discovery that a man is under the control of some wicked 
passion soon after his immersion is proof that he had not been a 
proper subject for immersion. If conversion involves so complete a 
renovation, that old mental habits are entirely eradicated, never to 
exert their influence again, then Simon was not a genuine convert. 
But if, as both Scripture and experience teach, the turning of a sinner 
to God is simply the triumph of conscience and the better feelings 
over the passions, while the latter still exist in a latent state, ready to 
spring into activity on the approach of temptation, we must admit that 
Simon may have been a penitent believer at the time of his immersion. 
That he was a believer is asserted by Luke; but whether he was to 
such a degree penitent as to receive pardon when he was immersed, is 
not certainly determined by the text. For aught that is affirmed of 
him, he may either have been influenced by sinister motives in confess- 
ing his faith, or have been truly penitent at the time, and afterward, 
under spur of the temptation which the splendid gifts bestowed by 
Peter were the occasion of, have yielded to the sudden impulse of his 
ruling passion. 

Whichever of these hypotheses we adopt, the case affords no objection 
to the immediate immersion of all who confess faith in Christ, and 
indicate a desire to obey him, no evidence of their insincerity being 
apparent. The inspired example of Philip is an authoritative guide 
for us, and if it appear that he occasionally immersed an unprepared 
subject, modern evangelists can not be censured' for following his 
example, though they should occasionally meet with the same misfor- 
tune. 

The supposition that Philip and Peter both, by the power of dis- 
cerning spirits, knew from the beginning that Simon's heart was not 
right, but, for wise reasons, withheld the announcement until his wick 
edness was developed before the people, is entirely gratuitous. The 
gift of "discerning spirits," mentioned in 1 Cor. xii: 10, was the power 
of testing the claims of those who professed to be inspired. There is 
no evidence that it was ever used by the apostles or others to detect 
the concealed thoughts and emotions of the soul. The detection of 
Ananias and Sapphira is not a case in point, for it was effected not 
by discerning their thoughts, but by a direct revelation to Peter that 
the story which they told was a lie. 

24. The conclusion of the conversation between Peter and Simon 
leaves us in doubt as to the final fate of the latter. Peter had exhorted 
him to repent, and pray to Cod for pardon. (24) " Then Simon an- 
swered and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things 
which ye have spoken come upon me." This response indicates very 



96 



ACTS VIII: 25,26. 



clearly that the scathing speech of Peter had a good effect. It doubt- 
less awoke Simon to a clearer perception of his own character, filled 
him with more becoming awe of the Holy Spirit, and aroused some 
fear of the terrible consequences of his sin. As the curtain of history 
here falls upon him, he disappears in a more promising state of feel- 
ing, but without leaving us fully assured that he recovered from the 
dominion of his unholy passions. Many things are said of his subse- 
quent career, in ancient and modern commentaries, but nothing that ia 
sufficiently authenticated to deserve our serious attention. 

25. In connection with the prime object of their visit to Samaria, 
Peter and John also furthered the efforts of Philip in preaching and 
teaching. This we learn from an incidental remark in connection 
with the statement of their departure for Jerusalem. (25) " Now they, 
having testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned into Jerusalem 
and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans." This labor 
in the Samaritan villages was performed on their journey toward Jeru- 
salem, which may have been somewhat circuitous, according to the 
situation of the villages which they desired to visit. Thus these prim- 
itive preachers of the gospel made all the stations of their journeys 
through the country successive points for disseminating the truth. 

26. When the congregation in Samaria had been supplied with 
spiritual gifts, and sufficiently instructed to justify leaving them to their 
own resources for edification, Philip was called away to other fields of 
labor. 

We are now introduced to another of those minutely detailed cases 
of conversion which are recorded for the purpose of instruction in 
reference to the means of turning men to God, and inducting them 
into the kingdom. The purpose of bringing him to a knowledge 
of salvation was formed in the divine mind, and specific means of 
accomplishing it put into operation, ere the man himself was aware 
of it. The narrative traces the steps by which this purpose of God 
was accomplished, and enables us to know, when God determines upon 
the conversion of an individual, how he proceeds to affect it. 

The first step taken in the case was to send an angel from heaven. 
But where does the angel make his appearance ? To the man for 
whose benefit he came ? So it must be, if he is to hold any direct 
communication with him. But, strange to say, while the man was 
south of Jerusalem, traveling toward Gaza, the angel descends into 
Samaria, to the north of Jerusalem, and appears to Philip. (26) "And 
an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the 
south, into the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is 
a desert." This is all that the angel has to say; and now his part of 
the work, which was simply to start the evangelist in the direction of 
the person to be converted, is accomplished. He retires from the 
scene. 

The statement "this is a desert" is correctly supposed, by the best 
commentators, to be no part of the angel's speech to Philip, but to 
have been added by Luke to note the singularity of a preacher being 
thus peremptorily sent away from a populous country into a desert. 
The term desert is not here to be understood in its stricter sense of 
a barren waste, but in its more general acceptation, of a place thinly 



ACTS VIII: 27-34. 



97 



inhabited. Such an interpretation is required by the geography of 
the country, and by the fact that water was found for the immersion 
"of the eunuch. The only road from Jerusalem to Gaza, which passed 
through a level district suitable for wheeled vehicles, was that by Beth- 
lehem to Hebron, and thence across a plain to Gaza. According to 
Dr. Hackett, this is "the desert" of Luke i: 80, in which John the 
Immerser grew up. Dr. S. T. Barclay, who traversed this entire route 
in May, 1853, says that he traveled, after leaving "the immediate 
vicinity of Hebron, over one of the very best roads (with slight excep- 
tions) and one of the most fertile countries that I ever beheld."* 

27, 28. Philip promptly obeyed the command of the angel, and was 
soon in close proximity to the intended convert, though, as yet, he 
knew nothing of him. (27) 11 He arose and went; and behold a man 
of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Gandace, queen of the 
Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jeru- 
salem to worship, (28) was returning, and sitting in his chariot, was read- 
ing the Prophet Isaiah." 

29. Just as Philip entered the road to which he had been directed 
by the angel, and saw the chariot before him, the Holy Spirit began to 
work for the conversion of the treasurer. And where does he begin 
his work ? In the heart of the sinner, by direct communication ? No. 
Like the angel, he begins with the preacher. (29) " Then the Spirit 
said to Philip, Go near, and join yourself to this chariot" This was 
a miraculous communication from the Spirit, such as frequently 
directed the labors of inspired men. The object of it was the same 
as that of the angel's visit, to bring the preacher and the subject for 
conversion face to face. 

30. The purpose of the angel's visit and the Spirit's miraculous com- 
munication was now accomplished. (30) " Then Philip ran to him, and 
heard him reading the Prophet Isaiah, and said, Do you understand what 
you are reading f " Considering the relative position of the parties, one 
an humble footman, and the other a chief officer of a powerful kingdom, 
sitting in his chariot, this question appears rather an abrupt and inap- 
propriate introduction to the conversation. But it was, in reality, the 
most natural and appropriate question that Philip could ask. Hear- 
ing the man reading aloud, in what we call the fifty-third chapter of 
Isaiah, that touching description of the sufferings of Christ, he knew 
that it was unintelligible to him if he was not acquainted with the gos- 
pel; whereas, if he had learned the story of the cross, he could not 
fail to understand it. The question, "Do you understand what you 
are reading?" was, then, the very question to determine where he 
stood, and how to approach him. 

31-35. The man's response was definite and satisfactory. (31) "And 
he said, How can I, except some man should guide me ? And he invited 
Philip to come up and sit with him. (32) Now the place of the Scripture 
which he was reading was this : He was led as a sheep to slaughter, 
and as a lamb silent before his shearer, so he opens not his mouth. (33) 
In his humiliation, his condemnation was extorted, and who shall fully 
describe his generation ? For his life is violently taken from the earth. 
(34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray you, of whom, 
* City of the Great King, p. 576. 

9 



9S 



ACTS VIII: 35. 



does the prophet speak this f Of himself, or of some other man f (35) 
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at the same Scripture, 
preached to him Jesus." 

We have now before us all the influences and agencies employed in 
this man's conversion, and may restate them, as follows: He was 
reading a remarkable prophesy concerning Christ, and had paused 
upon it, with the inquiry, Of whom is this written ? He could recol- 
lect nothing in the history of the prophet himself, or of any other 
man, to which it would apply. He was, therefore, unable to under- 
stand it; and if he had learned to pray as David did, the prompt im- 
pulse of his heart was, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold 
wondrous things out of thy law." In this frame of mind he was best 
prepared for the influences which God, who knows the secrets of all 
hearts, was preparing for him. If his eyes can be made to penetrate 
the darkness of that prophesy, and his heart to feel the power of the 
truth which lies there hid from his gaze, all will be well. But there 
is no human being present to teach him, nor does any friend of J esus 
know even of his existence. What, then, will be done ? God employs 
his Spirit to open the eyes and touch the hearts of men ; will he not, 
then, immediately distill a heavenly influence upon the man's soul, to 
enlighten him and save him ? He does not do it. And if not in this 
case, where no human agent is at hand, who shall say that he does in 
any other ? The word of God is silent in reference to any such abstract 
influence, and he who assumes its existence gets behind the curtain of 
revelation. 

But God also employs angels in ministering to those who shall be 
heirs of salvation. In the absence of human agency, will not some 
angel be dispatched to the aid of this waiting subject for salvation? 
An angel is truly sent; but his mission is, to start a man in the direc- 
tion of the chariot. When the man gets within sight of the chariot, 
the Holy Spirit begins to work; but he works by first bringing the 
man to the side of the chariot, and next, through his lips, speaking to 
the man in the chariot. Thus we see, that, though an angel from 
heaven has appeared, and the Holy Spirit has operated miraculously 
for the conversion of the sinner, there is still an insuperable necessity 
for the co-operation of a man. Unless that man does his part of the 
work, all that has been done by both the angel and the Spirit will 
prove unavailing. Not the slightest influence from either of the heav- 
enly messengers reaches the sinner's mind or heart, until the preacher 
begins to speak, and then it reaches him through the words which are 
spoken. 

The further process is easily traced. As Philip opens up item after 
item of the prophesy, and shows its fulfillment in Jesus, the eyes of 
the eunuch begin to penetrate the Scripture, until, at last, he sees a 
flood of heavenly light where all was darkness before. His eyes are 
opened, and he sees the wondrous glory of a suffering Savior beam- 
ing from the inspired page which lies before him. This is effected, 
not by an abstract influence of the Spirit, enabling him to understand 
what was before obscure, but by the aid of a fellow-man providentially 
sent to him for the purpose. 

The treasurer may have heard of Jesus, in Jerusalem ; but, if bo, 



ACTS VIII: 36. 



99 



he heard of him through those with whom he had been up to wor- 
ship, the bitter enemies of the cross; and knew him only as an 
impostor who had been deservedly crucified, though now worshiped 
by a few deluded Jews as their Messiah. But now, with a prophesy 
before him which he had tried in vain to find fulfilled in the history of 
any other man, but which finds its complement in the life and death 
of Jesus; and informed, by a man whose astonishing knowledge of 
the word of God is a guarantee of his honesty, that Jesus is risen 
from the dead, his honest heart interposes no wicked obstacles to his 
faith, and he believes. The demonstration strikes him with the greater 
force, because it is so unexpected. The Jews could not explain that 
prophesy, for they could not find its facts' in the life of any of their 
great heroes; and though the reference to the Messiah was so palpable 
as to at once suggest itself to every reader, they would not apply it to 
him, because their conception of his earthly glory conflicted with the 
humiliation and suffering described by the prophet. Until now, this 
very difficulty had been puzzling the mind of the treasurer. But he 
now sees the prophesy fulfilled; and while the demonstration compels 
him to believe, the true conception of a bleeding Messiah touches his 
heart. All this is effected by the Holy Spirit in Philip, through the 
words which Philip spoke. 

36. u And as they went along the road, they came to a certain water. 
And the eunuch said, What hinders me to be immersed 1 ? 11 The appear- 
ance of the water to which they had come suggested this question, but 
it could not have done so unless the eunuch had been taught some- 
thing concerning immersion as a religious ordinance. But he had 
enjoyed no opportunity for instruction on this subject, except through 
the teaching of Philip. Had Philip, then, preached him a sermon on 
immersion? No. Luke says Philip " preached to him Jesus." How, 
then, had he, while hearing Jesus preached, obtained instruction in 
reference to immersion ? There is only one answer to this question. 
It is, that to preach Jesus, after the apostolic method, involves full in- 
struction upon the subject of immersion. The prejudice, therefore, 
which exists at the present day against frequent introduction of this 
subject in discourses addressed to sinners, is altogether unscriptural; 
and those only preach Jesus correctly who give to it the same promi- 
nence which belongs to it in apostolic discourses. It was a p< r >rt of 
Peter's sermon on Pentecost, of Philip's preaching to the Samaritans, 
and of his present discourse to the Ethiopian; and we will yet see, in 
the course of this commentary, that it always occupied a place in the 
preaching of inspired men on such occasions. Indeed, it would be 
impossible to preach Jesus fully without it. For the beginning of the 
gospel, historically, according to Mark,* is the immersion of John, to 
which Jesus submitted, and near the conclusion of it is the commis- 
sion given in the last words of Jesus on earth, commanding every be- 
liever to be immersed, f Thus he who preaches Jesus has immersion 
in the beginning and in the end of his sermon. 

37. By the almost universal consent of recent critics, the whole of 
this verse is excluded from the original text, and should be from all 
versions. For the reasons on which this decision is based, we refer 



* Mark i : 1. 



t Mark xvi : 15, 16. 



100 



ACTS VIII : 37. 



the reader to " Bloom field's Commentary" on the passage, "Tregelle's 
History of the Printed Text," and other critical works. 

This verse has been used chiefly for the purpose of determining the 
confession which was made originally by candidates for immersion. 
The i'act that it is an interpolation must modify the argument on this 
subject, but does not invalidate it. The fact that such a confession as 
is here put into the mouth of the eunuch was uniformly required by the 
apostles, is evident from other passages of Scripture. It is quite certain 
that it was confessed by Timothy. Paul says to him: "Fight the 
good fight of faith ; lay hold on eternal life, into which you were 
called, and did confess the good confession before many witnesses."* This 
confession was made at the beginning of his religious career ; for it 
is connected with his call to eternal life. It is the same confession 
which is attributed to the eunuch ; for Paul immediately adds : M I 
charge thee before God, who gives life to all things, and Jesus Christ, 
who bore testimony under Pontius Pilate, to the good confession" etc. 
Now, what is here called "the good confession" is certainly the con- 
fession that he was the Christ, made before the Sanhedrim, under 
Pontius Pilate. But this is identified, by the terms employed, with 
the confession which Timothy had made, which is also " the good con- 
fession." Timothy, then, made the confession that Jesus is the Christ, 
the same attributed to the eunuch. Moreover, this confession was so 
conspicuous, at the time of Paul's writing, that it was known as the 
confession, and so highly esteemed as to be styled the good confession. 

That Timothy was not alone in making this confession is evident 
from the following statement of Paul: "The word is nigh thee, in thy 
mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach, 
That if thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe 
in thy heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
saved."f From this it appears that one item in "the word of faith" 
which the apostles preached, was the confession of the Lord Jesus with 
the mouth. Paul assumes that this word was in the mouths and hearts 
of the brethren in Rome, whom he had never seen, and with whose 
conversion he had nothing, personally, to do. This assumption can 
be justified only on the ground that it belonged to "the word of 
faith " everywhere preached. He argued, from the universal practice 
of the apostles, to a particular conclusion in reference to their con- 
verts in Rome. We have, therefore, both his premises and his con- 
clusion, to sustain us in deciding that this confession was universal in 
the primitive Church, as a part of the apostolic ritual. 

We here have use for the interpolated verse now under considera- 
tion. The fact that it is interpolated does not prove that the eunuch 
did not make the confession. On the contrary, when rightly consid- 
ered, it establishes the presumption that the passage, as it now reads, 
is a faithful account of the event. The interpolation is easily accounted 
for. The text read: "The eunuch said, See, here is water;. what hin- 
ders me to be immersed? And he commanded the chariot to stand 
still, and they went down both into the water." Now, the object of 
the interpolator was to fill up what appeared to be a historic blank, 



* 1 Tim. vi : 13. The terms Ifiox'oytw, and opoKoyix, should be uniformly rendered con- 
yes* and confession. t Rom. x : 8, 9. 



ACTS VIII : 37, 



101 



so that Philip should not appear to have led the man into the water 
too abruptly. In doing so, he, of course, inserted what he supposed to 
be the apostolic custom ; and the fact that he inserted this confession 
shows that he believed that the apostles required candidates for im- 
mersion to make the confession. Furthermore, the interpolator would 
naturally be guided by the prevailing custom of his own day, so that 
his amendment might be received by his cotemporaries. In whatever 
age, therefore, the interpolation was made, it indicates both the custom 
of that age and the opinion then prevalent as to the apostolic custom. 
Whether these considerations have any force or not, depends upon the 
proximity of the age in question to the apostolic period. But this 
interpolation was known to Irenseus, A. D. 170,* and this proves that 
the confession which the Scriptures show to have been universal in the 
days of the apostles was perpetuated into the latter part of the second 
century. 

Both the custom of confessing Christ, and the formula employed, 
originated in the most natural way, and without any positive precept. 
Jesus appeared in Galilee- and Judea, proclaiming himself the Christ 
and the Son of God. As men became convinced of his claims, they 
would say, "J believe that he is the Christ." Others would say, "I 
believe that he is a prophet, but I deny that he is the Christ." Thus 
the confession or denial of this proposition was the first mark of dis- 
tinction between believers and unbelievers. The Pharisees, therefore, 
" agreed that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should 
be put out of the synagogue." f The confession was, then, all that 
was necessary to identify one as a disciple of Jesus. Hence, with special 
reference to this state of things, Jesus said, " He that confesses me 
before men, him will I confess before my Father in heaven; but he 
that denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father in 
heaven." After the commission was given, enjoining the immersion 
of all believers, the confession was still perpetuated, and immersion 
naturally took position immediately after it. 

A confession thus necessarily originating from the grand issue that 
Jesus presented to the world, and involving the earliest distinction 
between his friends and his foes, could not fail to have an important 
position in the formation of those friends into a great organization. 
The Church of Christ, like every .other useful organization, is created 
and sustained by the obligations of some truth. This truth may be 
properly styled the foundation of the organization, because it is that 
from which it springs, and without which it could not exist. The 
truth declared in the confession, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God, is, beyond controversy, the foundation of the Church of Christ, 
and is so declared by Jesus himself.^ Without it no Church of Christ 
could possibly exist. It had to exist as a truth, and be demonstrated 
to men as such, before the Church could begin to be. The truth itself, 
however, and the confession of it, are two things entirely distinct. The 
former is the foundation; the latter a means of building on it. There 
is no way to build an organization of men and women on a truth, 
except by a mutual confession of it, and an agreement to live together 
according to its obligations. When individuals, believing that Jesus 



Hackett, in loco. 



f John ix : 22. 



X Matt, xvi ; 16-18. 



102 



ACTS VIII : 37. 



is the Christ, mutually confess it, and agree to unite in the observance 
of its obligations, the immediate and necessary result is a Church. In 
this way the confession became an organic element in the ecclesiastical 
constitution. 

Inasmuch as some have conceived that Jesus in person is the found- 
ation of the Church, it may be well to observe here that there is no 
way in which an organization can be built on a person, except by 
believing something in reference to him. It is not the fact that there 
is such a person as J esus, but that that person is the Christ which gave 
existence to the Church. 

Inasmuch as members of the Church are built upon the true found- 
ation, in part, by a mutual confession of its truth, the confession, form- 
ally made, is both an acknowledgment of the obligations which the 
truth imposes, and a pledge to all the duties of a member in the Church. 
It is true, that the confession, like immersion, and eating bread and 
wine, may occur amid the careless scenes of a wicked life, without any 
religious import. But this is only to say that the specific acts which 
God calls upon us to perform in religious ordinances maybe performed 
by wicked men without religious intent. And this, again, is only to 
say, that, in adapting his institutions to us, instead of inventing new 
and unheard-of performances, he has lifted up certain actions and 
words already familiar, into association with religious truth and obli- 
gation. This arrangement is a proof of his wisdom ; for by it the mind 
is averted from the mere physical act, which might otherwise have 
usurped too much consideration, and is compelled to associate the value 
of the deed with the thoughts which surround it. Such is pre-eminently 
the case with the confession, which, though a very simple declaration 
of faith, in reference to the most familiar fact in the scheme of redemp- 
tion, is a formal assumption of all the obligations of a Christian life. 

The kingdom of Christ is not liinited to earth, but was designed to 
bind together, in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men. God 
himself was the first to present himself for this great union. Over 
the bank of the Jordan he made the same confession which is required 
of us, and thereby not only bore testimony to the fact that J esus was 
his Son, but, also, voluntarily placed himself before the universe in the 
attitude which the incipient mediatorship required him to occupy. By 
this formal confession he pledged himself to accept the mediation of 
Christ, just as we, by the same confession, pledge ourselves to accept 
the blessings which that mediation procures for us. If God had never 
confessed Jesus, in this or some equivalent manner, we would have no 
direct assurance from him that he was in Christ reconciling the world 
to himself. 

Like men on earth, the angels in heaven passed into the privileges 
of the kingdom of God, by making this same confession. When Jesus 
ascended up on high, the Father said to him, "Sit on my right hand, 
till I make thine enemies thy footstool."* Then he "sat down at the 
right hand of the throne of God,"f and God said, "Let all the angels 
of God worship him. "J Then were fulfilled the words of Paul, "God 
hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every 
name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in 

* Heb. i : 13. t Helj - xii : 2 - t Heb - i : 6 - 



ACTS VIII: 37. 



103 



heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that 
every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the 
Father." The angels all confessed the good confession, receiving Jesus 
as their Lord, and rendering thus their first act of worship to the Son 
of Mary. The one identical confession, therefore, has brought together, 
in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men; the latter being 
pledged by it to eternal worship, and the former pledged forever to 
accept their grateful homage through Christ. 

That this confession was the only one required of candidates for 
immersion by the apostles, is universally admitted by those who are 
competent to judge. It is likewise admitted that they regarded it as a 
sufficient confession. This fact alone should teach men to be satisfied 
with it now. He, indeed, .who is guided by the Bible alone, can not 
require of men any other confession than such as he finds authorized by 
Bible precedents. Neither is it possible that he who implicitly follows 
the apostolic precedent can be misled, unless the apostles, the Holy 
Spirit, the New Testament, can mislead him. Fidelity to the word of 
God, therefore, binds us to this confession alone, and, in clinging to it, 
we have every assurance which inspiration can give that we are right. 

Departure from apostolic precedent is never justifiable, except when 
the precedent itself was the result of circumstances peculiar to the 
apostolic age. The primitive practice of washing the feet of brethren 
who came into the house from the highway, was an accidental, and not 
a necessary result of the law of hospitality. Growing out of the pecu- 
liar habit of wearing sandals, it ceased to be a matter of duty as soon 
as the circumstances which gave rise to it disappeared. If a similar 
change of circumstances has taken place in reference to the confession, 
rendering it insufficient for our times, then we are no longer bound by 
the precedent^ That such is the case is affirmed by many of our co- 
temporaries, and we must extend these remarks sufficiently to consider 
the reasons offered in support of this opinion. 

It is often argued that, in the days of the apostles, the moment men 
became convinced that Jesus was the Christ they were ready to sub- 
mit to his service; but now, every Church is surrounded with men and 
women who are convinced of this fact, but still persist in wickedness; 
hence some more effectual test should now be applied. This argu- 
ment is based upon a false assumption in reference to results of primi- 
tive preaching; for we read of many rulers of synagogues who believed 
in Jesus, but would not confess him for fear of the Pharisees;* of Jo- 
seph of Arimathea, who, though a disciple, kept it secret ;f of Felix, 
who trembled under the preaching of Paul, but said, Go thy way for 
the present; and of Agrippa, who was almost, though not altogether, 
persuaded to be a Christian. If these men in high stations were de- 
terred by fear, or by worldly lusts, from making the confession, how 
much more the common people, who had much more to fear! Witness 
the parents of the blind man who had been healed by Jesus, who gave 
evasive answers in the synagogue for this very reason. | There is no 
evidence that men were more prompt to yield to their convictions 
then than they are now. 

Sometimes it is argued, quite inconsistently with the above, that the 



* John xii : 42. 



f John xix. : 38. 



X John in ; 22. 



104 



ACTS VIII: 37. 



danger of being known as a Christian in those days rendered the sim- 
ple confession a sufficient test of a man's devotion; but now, when 
Christianity is popular, it is entirely insufficient. It must be granted, 
that sometimes it was dangerous to property and life to become a 
Christian, yet it was true then, as it is now, that many insincere per- 
sons found their way into the Churches. Jude complains that "un- 
godly men, turning the favor of God into lasciviousness, and denying 
the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," had "crept in una- 
wares."* Paul echoes the same sentiment in reference to "false breth- 
ren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty 
which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bond- 
age." - }" There were those "who went out from us because they were 
not of us," and there was Demas, who forsook Paul in the hour of 
danger, "having loved this present world." And what more shall I 
say ? For the time would fail me to tell of Simon the sorcerer, of 
Alexander the coppersmith, of Phygellus and Hermogenes, of Hy- 
meneus and Alexander whom Paul delivered over to Satan that they 
might learn not to blaspheme, and of many others who proved insin- 
cere in their confession, or false to its obligations. Surely, if a test of 
sincerity which could let into the fold such wolves as these was suffi- 
cient for the inspired apostles, we may be content with the same, un- 
less we affect a wisdom and a zeal superior to theirs. 

But the most popular argument against the present sufficiency of 
the good confession is this : that the immense multiplicity of doctrinal 
errors now prevalent requires a severer test of soundness in the faith 
than was used by the apostles before these errors had an existence. 
Unfortunately, however, its historic assumption is as baseless as that 
of the two we have just considered. For not only were the Churches 
surrounded with most pernicious errors in doctrine, but were sickened 
by the poison of those errors within their own bosoms. * Pharisees in 
Jerusalem crept in to spy out the liberty of the new covenant, and 
bring the brethren back into bondage to the law; X and there were 
Sadducees in the Church in Corinth who denied the resurrection. || 
There were philosophers, such as " Hymeneus and Philetus, who con- 
cerning the faith have erred, saying that the resurrection is already 
past, and overthrow the faith of some,"§ and there were transcendent- 
ajists, who denied that "Jesus Christ had come in the flesh,"^f having 
speculated his bodily existence into the essence of moonshine, or some- 
thing equally unreal. James had to warn some against being deceived 
into worship of the heavenly bodies, by assuring them that " every 
good gift comes down from the Father of lights," and not from the 
lights themselves; while Paul fights many a hard battle against 
brethren who were disposed to openly countenance fornication, incest, 
and the sacrificial banquets of heathen worship. Under the pressure 
of all this influx of falsehood and iniquity, why did not these inspired 
men see their mistake, and, discarding the simple confession, draw up 
a masterly catechism, which would shut out every error, and guard 
the purity of the Church? How sad the reflection, that men so ingen- 
ious in other respects, were so stupid in this ! And how fortunate for 



* Jude iv. 

| 1 Cor. xt : 12. 



+ Gal. ii : 4. 

I 2 Tim. ii : 17, 17. 



f Gal. ii : 4. 

\ 1 John iv : 1-3. 



ACTS VIII: 38, 39. 



105 



us, that the wiser heads of Rome, Geneva, Augsburg, and Westmin- 
ster have supplied this deficiency in the work of the apostles ! 

We have thus far argued upon the broadest assumption in reference 
to the inefficiency of the good confession in guarding the purity of 
the Church. We might retort upon the advocates of creeds and cate- 
chisms, by showing that these devices can not be, and have not been, 
any more efficient; but we prefer to show the real exclusiveness of the 
good confession. It is certainly exclusive enough to keep out the pa- 
gan, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the atheist, and the infidel; for none 
of these can honestly make the confession. It will exclude the Unita- 
( rian and the Universalist; for while they are willing to confess that 
Jesus is the Christ, in the next breath they deny him, by contradicting 
some of his most emphatic declarations. It will also exclude the 
wicked and impenitent; for it is offered only to penitent believers. If 
this is not considered sufficient, we may advance still further, and say 
that it will exclude the Roman Catholic, who persists in having other 
intercessors in heaven besides the high priest of our confession."* It 
will exclude the devotee of the mourning bench, who waits for an 
operation of the Spirit before he comes to Christ. It will exclude the 
pedobaptist, who is satisfied with his sprinkling; for it requires an im- 
mediate immersion. None of these characters can scripturally make 
the good confession without some specific change in views or in char- 
acter. Lest the tune of the objector should now be changed, and he 
should cry, "Your confession is too exclusive," we add, that it receives 
all whom the apostles would receive, and excludes all whom they 
would exclude. 

38, 39. When Philip ascertained that the eunuch believed in the 
Lord Jesus, and desired to obey him, there was no delay, but his de- 
sire to be immersed was immediately gratified. (38) ^ And he com- 
manded the chariot to stand still, and they went down into the water, both 
Philip and the eunuch, and he immersed him. (39) And. vjhen they were 
come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip ; and 
the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.^ 

This is one of the passages which the conflict of contending parties 
has rendered familiar to every reader of the New Testament. The 
questions in controversy are: First, Whether Philip and the eunuch 
went into the water, or only to it; Second, Whether the facts in the 
case afford any evidence that the eunuch was immersed. 

The determination of the first question depends upon the exact force 
of the antithetical expressions, Kare^r/aav elg to v6up, and avsfir/oav f/c rov 
vSarog. If the latter means, " they went up out of the water," then the 
former necessarily means, "they went down into the water;" and vice 
versa. There are two methods of inquiry, therefore, by which to 
determine whether they went into the water: First, The direct method, 
which depends upon the meaning of the words supposed to declare this 
fact; Second, The indirect method, which determines whether they 
went into the water, by determining whether they went out of it. 

In dealing with this question, Dr. Moses Stuart, one of the most 
learned and candid of the disputants on the pedobaptist side, docs great 
injustice to his own reputation. He says: "That etc, with the verb 

* Heb. iii : 1. 



106 



ACTS VIII: 38, 39. 



KciTa/Saiva), often means going down to a place, is quite certain ; e. g. 
'Jesus went down to Capernaum;' 'Jacob went down to Egypt;' 'They 
went down to Attalia;' 'They went down to Troas;' 'He went down to 
Antioch;' 'Going down to Csesarea.' "* How strange it is that the 
learned author did not perceive that in every one of these examples 
the meaning is necessarily into ! If he had paused to ask himself 
whether Jesus went into Capernaum, and Jacob into Egypt, and so of 
the others, or merely went to the boundary line of those places, he would 
have spared his reputation by erasing this paragraph. He would also 
have saved himself the utterance of another unfortunate sentence on 
the same page : " I find but one passage in the New Testament where 
it seems to mean into when used with Kara^aivu. This is in Romans 
x: 7, Who shall go down, elc afivccov, into the abyss?" Besides the 
examples mentioned above, he must have searched with very little 
industry not to have discovered the following: "Let him that is on 
the housetop not go down into, Karaftaru elg, the house."-}- " Now that he 
ascended, what is it but that he also first descended into, nark^n sic, the 
lower parts of the earth ?"$ "This man went down into, Karkfiri eic, his 
house, justified rather than the other." || "A certain man was going 
down, Karafiaivev, from Jerusalem into, eic, Jericho."£ "The road that 
goes down, Karafiahovaav, from Jerusalem into, eig, Graza."^[ , 

These are all the instances in the New Testament in which these 
two words occur together; and the reader can but see, that in every 
single instance the controverted expression means to go down into. By 
our first method of inquiry, therefore, it is settled that Philip and the 
eunuch went down into the water. 

It is not logically necessary to pursue this discussion any further; 
but, lest it might be imagined that the conclusion we have already 
reached should be modified by the force of the other member of the 
antithesis, we must give some attention to the meaning of avefir/Gav ek 

v vdarog. And here I must take exceptions to another sweeping dec- 
laration of Dr. Stuart's. He says: u Ava^aiva) is never employed in the 
sense of emerging from a liquid substance. The preposition ek, here, 
would agree with this idea — although it, by no means, of necessity 
implies it; but avaftaivu forbids us to thus construe it." Why is this 
apparently broad assertion so cautiously limited to the single case of 
"emerging from a liquid substance?" Is it possible that Dr. Stuart 
knew that the expression meant to go up out of, but, thinking that it 
did not occur in any other passage in connection with a liquid, framed 
his proposition to suit such an accident f It is humiliating in the 
extreme to see so great a mind descend to such special pleading on so 
grave a subject. If avaj3aiv£iv ek means to go up out of, nothing but the 
most determined obduracy can preclude the admission that it means 
the same when referring to liquids as to other substances. Now, it is 
a fact, and it must have been known to Dr. Stuart, if he examined into 
the ground of his own statements, that, in every single occurrence of 
these two words in connection, in the New Testament, they mean to go 
up out of** Moreover, in one of these occurrences they are " employed 

* Stuart on Baptism, Nashville, 1856, p. 95. t Mark xiii : 15 - t E P h - iv: 9 - 

|| Luke xviii : 14. § Luke x : 30. U Acts viii : 26. 

** See John xi : 55 ; Luke ii : 4 ; Key. viii : 4 ; ix : 2 ; xi : 7 ; xiii : 1 ; xiii : 11 ; xvii : 8. 



ACTS VIII: 39, 39. 



107 



in the sense of emerging from a liquid substance." In Revelations 
xiii: 1, John says: " I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast, 
kit tiiq da/McarjQ avafiaivov, rising up out of the sea." Notwithstanding 
this broad assertion of Dr. Stuart's, therefore, the expression in ques- 
tion does, without a single exception, invariably mean to go up out of 
Philip and the eunuch, then, went up out of the water ; hence, they must 
first have gone down into it. By both methods of inquiry, the conclu- 
sion is established. 

The most astonishing display of partisan blindness on this passage 
is yet to be noticed. It is an argument employed by Moses Stuart, in 
which he is followed by Dr. Alexander. He says : " If aark^rjaav elg to 
vSup is meant to designate the action of plunging, or being immersed into 
the water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as 
well as the eunuch : for the sacred writer says they both went into the 
water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and, 
what is at least singular, he must have baptized himself as well as the 
eunuch." This argument proceeds upon the assumption that immer- 
sionists regard the act of going down into water as the act of immer- 
sion, than which there could not be a grosser perversion of their 
meaning. When a strong mind descends to arguments so weak and 
childish as this, we have the clearest evidence that the cause in which 
it is employed is felt to be weak and untenable. 

We must now address ourselves to the inquiry, whether this passage 
affords any evidence in favor of immersion. This much-controverted 
question may be discussed either as a philological question, or as a 
question of fact. In the former method, the controversy turns upon the 
meaning of the Greek word /?a7nri£«. In the latter, upon the action per- 
formed by the apostles, when they baptized men. Questions of fact are 
much more tangible than those in philology, especially when the philo- 
logical inquiry runs into a foreign language. We prefer, therefore, 
to discuss this question as a simple matter of fact; and this method is 
the more appropriate in this work, which treats of acts performed by 
apostles. It can be most easily determined what act was performed 
when men were baptized, without any discussion as to the meaning 
of the word (iawrL^o. 

If the passage before us contains any evidence that the eunuch was 
immersed, outside of the meaning of the word, it must be circumstan- 
tial evidence, and not direct testimony. In ordinary jurisprudence, 
the former is often more conclusive than the latter; for living wit- 
nesses may be bribed, or voluntarily bear false testimony; but facts, 
however grossly they may be misinterpreted, can never give real ut- 
terance to falsehood. Circumstantial evidence is that derived from 
facts which transpired in such connection with the main fact assumed 
as to indicate its existence or character. There are two conditions 
necessary to its conclusiveness: First, That the facts which constitute 
the circumstances be fully authenticated; Second, That they shall be 
such as can not be accounted for without the admission of the main 
fact at issue. The first condition is always satisfied in scriptural in- 
quiries, because the facts are asserted by infallible witnesses. Every 
thing depends, therefore, upon compliance with the second condition. 
This compliance may be so various in degree, as to admit of every 



108 



ACTS VIII: 38, 39. 



possible degree of conclusiveness, from the slightest presumption up to 
absolute certainty. When the circumstances are as easily accounted 
for without the fact assumed as with it, they afford no evidence at all. 
When they can be better accounted for with the fact than without it, 
the evidence is probable. When they can not possibly be accounted 
for without the fact, and are fully accounted for by the fact, the evi- 
dence is irresistible. 

When the facts constituting the circumstances are actions performed 
by men, this introduces an additional element into the argument. In 
this case, if the agent is a rational man, he must be supposed to act 
for a reason, and his actions, as circumstances, may be regarded with 
reference to the reasons for which they were performed. We further 
observe, that the question, What act was performed by the apostles 
under the name of baptism? has not reference to an indefinite number 
of actions, but is confined, by the nature of the controversy, to two. 
It was either immersion or affusion ; the latter term embracing both 
the specific acts of sprinkling and pouring. This is admitted by all 
parties; for, although some contend that either act will serve the pur- 
pose of a valid baptism, no one, at the present day, contends that the 
apostles practiced both. Those who contend for affusion deny that the 
apostles or John the harbinger practiced immersion ; while those who 
contend for immersion deny that they practiced affusion. It is as if 
A and B were brought into court for trial in reference to the murder 
of C. It is admitted by both the parties, and known to the counsel, 
the jurors, the judge, the sheriff, and the spectators, that the murder 
was committed by one of these two parties. Now, whatever evidence 
might be presented to exculpate A, would have precisely the same tend- 
ency to the conviction of B. And if the demonstration of A's inno- 
cence were complete, the jury would render a verdict against B, though 
not a witness had testified directly to his guilt. Just so in the present 
ease. Whatever evidence can be found against the affusion of the 
eunuch and others, is good to the same extent in favor of their im- 
mersion, and vice versa. 

The circumstances by which this question is to be decided are di- 
vided into two distinct classes, which we may style, respectively, cir- 
cumstances of fact, and circumstances of allusion. We will consider 
them in the order in which they are here named. 

There are some circumstances of fact which afford no evidence 
upon this question whatever. For instance, three thousand persons 
were baptized in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, in one afternoon. 
Now, if it were impossible for the agents employed to immerse so 
many in so short a time, or if sufficient water for the purpose could 
not have been found in Jerusalem, the two circumstances of place and 
time would furnish evidence against immersion. But as the facts on 
which this evidence would depend did not exist,* no such evidence is 
here found. All the circumstances involved in the transaction can 
be accounted for by the supposition of either affusion or immersion ; 
hence they furnish no evidence in favor of either as against the other. 
In like manner, the command of Ananias to Saul, to "Arise and be 
baptized," though it supplies the fact that previous to being baptized 

* See Com. ii: 41. 



ACTS VIII: 38, 39. 



109 



he must arise from his prostrate or recumbent position, furnishes no 
evidence bearing upon our question, because it is consistent with either 
immersion or affusion. If it were proved that C was murdered with 
a club, this in itself would be no evidence against A, or in favor of B, 
seeing that either of them could have used a club.. 

But there are other circumstances of fact which afford unmistaka- 
ble evidence upon this question. The agent about to perform the act 
in dispute selected for the purpose a river, as the Jordan, * or a place 
where there was 11 much water," as in "iEnon near to Salim."-}- When 
the parties about to perform the act were in an ordinary dwelling, they 
went out of doors for the purpose, though it were the hour of mid- 
night, as in the case of the Philippian jailer.J When they came to 
the water selected, both the administrator and the subject went down 
into it, as in the case of the eunuch, and the baptism was performed 
while they were in it. These are all unquestionable facts, for they are 
declared in unambiguous terms by infallible witnesses. They are also 
actions performed by rational men, and, therefore, each of them must 
have been performed for some reason. Moreover, the reason for each 
was furnished by the nature of the main act, for the purpose of accom- 
plishing which each of these subordinate actions was performed. But 
the supposition of affusion furnishes no conceivable reason for any one 
of these actions. It can not, therefore, be the main act in question. 

Again: If the main act could have been as well and as conveni- 
ently performed without these subordinate actions as with them, then 
all these agents acted without a reason. But certainly affusion, even 
of the multitudes baptized by John, could have been performed as con- 
veniently to himself and the people, at some well or fountain centrally 
located, as at the Jordan, or in iEnon. Paul could have sprinkled the 
jailer as conveniently in the house at midnight, as out of doors; and 
Philip could have sprinkled or poured water on the eunuch as well at 
the brink of the water, as by going down into it. Each of these sub- 
ordinate actions, therefore, was an irrational one, if affusion was the 
main act performed. 

But, still further, there are good and valid reasons against such a line 
of action as we are considering, such as have sufficed, in every age 
and country, and among all ranks of society, to cause those who per- 
form affusion to pursue a course the reverse of this in every particu- 
lar. To save time and labor, and to avoid personal discomfort, instead 
of going to rivers and places of much water, they administer the rite 
at home or at church. Instead of going out of doors at night, if they 
happen to be out of doors, they prefer to go into the house. And, in- 
stead of going down into the water, they dip into it merely the tips of 
their fingers, or, avoiding all contact with the water themselves, they 
pour it from a vessel upon the subject. To suppose, in the face of all 
these reasons, which are controlling with rational men, that the apos- 
tles performed the various actions which we know they did, for the 
purpose of affusion, is to suppose them to act not only irrationally, but 
contrary to all the reasons which govern rational men. But they were 
rational men; therefore, he who reasons thus concerning them is con- 
victed, beyond question, of drawing an irrational conclusion. 

* Mark i : 5. f John »i : 23 « X Com - xvi : 33 - 



110 



ACTS VIII: 38, 39. 



So far as the circumstances of fact are concerned, we might logically 
rest the case here; for, having sustained the negative proposition that 
affusion was not the act in question, we have no alternative but to con- 
clude that it was immersion. But the same circumstantial evidence 
which brings us to so solid a conclusion by this indirect method, serves 
the purpose equally well when applied to the direct proof of immersion. 
The supposition of immersion furnishes the desired reason for each one 
of the subordinate actions we have been considering. It accounts for 
the selection of a river or a place of much water; for leaving the house 
at midnight, and for going down into the water. It is the only suppo- 
sition which can account for them; and, therefore, their existence de- 
mands the existence of immersion. We must either deny these facts, 
which would be infidelity; deny that the apostles acted rationally, 
which would be the hight of folly and impiety; or admit that immer- 
sion, and not affusion, was the apostolic practice. 

The circumstances of allusion are equally conclusive with those 
already considered. Their force may be stated thus: When parties 
who are certainly acquainted with the facts in dispute let drop inci- 
dental remarks indicative of the nature of the facts, such remarks 
afford evidence, by indicating the knowledge possessed by the speaker. 
If, in the case of trial for murder above supposed, it were known 
that D was cognizant of all the facts, any incidental statetement of 
his, inconsistent with the supposition that he knew A to be the 
murderer, would afford circumstantial evidence in favor of A, and 
against B. Now, Jesus and the apostles were cognizant of all the 
facts in reference to baptism, and they have made certain allusions 
to it, which, so far as the nature of the act is concerned, are incidental, 
but which indicate what they knew the act to be. If, upon a colla- 
tion of these allusions, we find them inconsistent with the knowledge, 
on their part, that baptism was affusion, but just such as imply the 
knowledge that it was immersion, the evidence from this source will 
be conclusive. 

Of the many allusions at hand, we will select, for our present pur- 
pose, only a few, the bearing of which appears least liable to dispute. 
First, in the words of our Savior, " Except a man be born of water and 
the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." That the ex- 
pression, "born of water," is an allusion to baptism, is admitted by all 
standard commentators and critics known to the writer, and is disputed 
by none but those who are incapable of being candid upon this subject. 
The term is used metaphorically, and, therefore, indicates some con- 
nection with water, which is analogous to a birth. But there is no 
conceivable analogy between a birth and an application of water by 
affusion ; hence it is impossible that Jesus could have known the act 
alluded to to be affusion. The expression forces the mind to something 
like a birth, which can be found only in the act of drawing the body 
out of water, which takes place in immersion. This, alone, could have 
suggested the metaphor to the mind of Jesus, and to this our minds 
intuitively run when we hear the words pronounced. It is intuitively 
certain, therefore, that Jesus alluded to immersion, and not to sprink- 
ling. 

The next allusion to which we invite attention is that in which 



ACTS VIII: 38, 39. 



Ill 



Jesus calls the unspeakable sufferings which were to terminate his 
life, "The baptism with which I am to be baptized."* Here the term 
baptism is used metaphorically for his sufferings, which could not be 
unless there is, in literal baptism, something analogous to the over- 
whelming agonies of Gethsemane and Calvary. The soul revolts at 
the supposition that a mere sprinkling, or pouring of water on the face, 
could have supplied this analogy, and intuitively demands something 
like the sweep of water over the sinking body, which is witnessed in 
immersion. Immersion supplies the analogy, and it must be the 
meaning of the term baptism, if there is any meaning in the Savior's 
mournful words. 

One allusion from the Apostle Paul, and one from Peter, will suffice 
for our present purpose. Paul exhorts the brethren to draw near to 
God, " having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our 
bodies washed with pure water. "f Here is an allusion to the sprinkled 
blood of Christ, as cleansing the heart from an evil conscience, and 
to baptism as a washing of the body. But this language is inconsistent 
with the idea of sprinkling or pouring a little water on the face, which 
could, by no propriety of speech, be styled a washing of the body. 
Nothing but immersion will meet the demands of the expression, for 
the words describe what takes in immersion, and in no other ordinance 
of the New Testament. Peter's allusion is quite similar to this. He 
saj^s: "Baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh, but the seeking of a good conscience toward God." 
Now Peter could not have supplied the words, " Not the putting away 
of the filth of the flesh," unless there was something in baptism which 
might possibly be mistaken for this. But it would be impossible for 
any one to so mistake sprinkling, while immersion might be readily 
mistaken for a cleansing of the flesh. Peter, then, knew that immer- 
sion, and not affusion, was baptism, and so indicates by this language. 

We now have before us, from Jesus and Paul and Peter, who cer- 
tainly knew what baptism was, unmistakable allusions to it, which 
could not have been made if they knew it to be affusion, and which 
force us to the conclusion that they knew it to be immersion. It is 
difficult to conceive how circumstantial evidence could be more con- 
clusive. 

We might add to our list of circumstances of allusion the statement 
of Paul in Romans vi: 4, and Colossians ii : 12, that in baptism we 
are buried and raised again. But I regard this as direct testimony to 
what is done in baptism, and not a mere allusion to it. If any man 
were to try to frame a statement of what takes place in the act of im- 
mersion, he could not do so in more unambiguous terms than to say 
" We are buried and raised again." If he were to say " We are immersed" 
it would not be so specific a description of the act, nor so little liable 
to dispute as to its real meaning. 

The last clause of the passage under consideration demands some 
notice ere we introduce another section of the text. It is said that 
" when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught 
Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his 
way rejoicing." No doubt the influence of the Spirit by which Philip 

* Matt, xx : 22. \ Heb. x : 22. 



112 



ACTS VIII: 40. 



was caught away was the same as that which had at first joined him 
to the chariot. It was that monition of the Spirit by which the 
movements of inspired men were frequently directed. We will notice 
frequent instances of the kind in the course of this work. 

When Philip was caught away to other labors, the eunuch " went 
on his wa} r rejoicing." So universally does joy pervade the hearts of 
those whose sins are forgiven, that many sectaries of modern times 
have mistaken it for the evidence of pardon. The fallacy which they 
commit is to assume, without authority, that a real pardon from God 
is the only cause which can induce this feeling. Now, we know that 
joy must spring up in the heart, under the belief that pardon has been 
dispensed, however mistaken that belief may be. The convict await- 
ing execution would be just as happy if deceived by a counterfeit par- 
don, as if it were genuine. So with the penitent sinner. When his 
soul has been racked, for hours and days together, by the torture of 
an awakened conscience, it is likely, by the reaction of its own powers, 
or through exhaustion of the nervous system, to become calm. Now, 
if he has been taught that the supervening of this calm is an indica- 
tion of pardon, immediately upon the consciousness of its presence 
there will spring up that joy which he alone feels who believes his 
sins are pardoned. Such individuals, however, generally have serious 
doubts, at times, whether they did not mistake .the natural for the 
supernatural, and they seldom obtain more than a hope that their sins 
were forgiven. The rejoicing of the eunuch was based upon far differ- 
ent and more solid ground. Taught by Philip, according to the com- 
mission, and according to the preaching of Peter, who had been Philip's 
own teacher, that the penitent believer was to be immersed for the 
remission of sins; realizing, in his own consciousness, that he was a 
penitent believer; and having been immersed, his conviction that his 
sins were pardoned was as solid as his confidence in the word of God 
and in his own consciousness. In neither of these could he well be 
mistaken, and, therefore, his joy was not alloyed by any harassing 
doubts. 

We now part company with this noble man, whose ready faith and 
prompt obedience give evidence of such a character that we would 
love to travel with him further ; but here the curtain of authentic 
history drops upon him, and we see him no longer. Happily, the 
echoes that come back to us, as he passes on, are notes of joy, and we 
may hope to meet him at the point where all our journeys meet, and 
rejoice with him forever. 

40. The historian brings the present section of his narrative to a 
close by a brief notice of the subsequent labors of Philip. (40) "But 
Philip was found at Azotus ; and, passing along, he preached the gospel 
in all the cities till he came to Ccesarea." The town of Azotus, the 
Ashdod of the Old Testament, was westward of the route the eunuch 
was pursuing, on the shore of the Mediterranean. Philip's further 
tour extended northward, along the sea-shore, to Cassarea. We are 
not yet prepared to bid him a final adieu; but will meet him again, 
after the shifting scenes of many years, to say farewell amid many 
tears.* 

* See Acts xxi : 8. 



ACTS IX: 1, 2. 



113 



IX : 1, 2. There is a sudden transition in our narrative at this point, 
and it assumes more the character of a biography. The writers of 
sacred history, in both Testaments, devote the greater part of their 
space to biographical sketches. The greater familiarity of the masses 
of the people with such portions of the Bible fully attests the wisdom 
of this course. This familiarity is the result of a deeper impression 
made upon the heart, and, consequently, upon the memory We 
accept it, therefore, thankfully, that Luke, in his sketch of apostolic 
labors, was directed to record, somewhat connectedly, the labors of 
Paul, rather than detached sketches from the lives of all the apostles. 
What is lost to our curiosity in reference to the other apostles is far 
overbalanced by the more thrilling effect of a continuous personal nar- 
rative. This effect is all the more thrilling, from the selection of him, 
who, among all the apostles, was "in labors most abundant." 

Saul has already been introduced to the reader in the account of 
Stephen's martyrdom. By the aid of his own subsequent statements 
concerning himself, we are able to trace his history to a still earlier 
period. The early education and ancestral remembrances of a man 
have much to do in forming his character and shaping his career. 
Those of Saul were calculated to thrust him into the very scenes in 
which he first figures in history. He was born in the city of Tarsus, 
in Cilicia, not far from the period at which Jesus was born in Bethle- 
hem. He was of pure Jewish extraction, of the tribe of Benjamin, 
and descended from pious ancestry. This insured his careful instruc- 
tion in Jewish history, and such portions of the law of Moses as he 
could understand in childhood. His parents were Pharisees, and, 
therefore, his understanding of the Scriptures was modified by the 
peculiar interpretations and traditions of that sect, while his prejudices 
were all enlisted in its favor. * 

Besides this religious instruction, he was taught the trade of tent- 
making. The goat's hair which was used in this manufacture was 
produced in Cilicia in such abundance, and of so fine a quality, that 
the manufactured article acquired the name Cilicium, from the name 
of the province. The wisdom of his parents in teaching him this 
trade as a means of providing against the unfortunate contingencies 
of life, will be fully exemplified in the course of this narrative. 

The child was being educated, under the eye of an overruling Provi- 
dence, for a future unthought of by either himself or his parents. His 
residence in a city where the Greek language prevailed was not the 
least important circumstance bearing upon this education. Like the 
children of foreigners in our own country, though the ancestral tongue 
was the language of the fireside, on the streets and in all places of 
public resort he was compelled to employ the language of the adopted 
country. In this way he acquired that familiarity with the Greek, 
which enabled him, in after-life, to employ it with facility both in 
writing and speaking. 

It was only bis earliest childhood that was thus devoted to parental 
instruction, and to the acquirement of the Greek language and a trade; 
for he was "brought up" in the city of Jerusalem, at the feet of Gama- 
liel, f Under the instruction of this learned Pharisee, whose prudence 
* Sue Phil, iii : 4, 5 ; 2 Tim. i : 3. f Acts xxii : 3. 

10 



114 



ACTS IX: 1, 2. 



and whose calm indifference to the cause of Christ we have had occa- 
sion to notice, in commenting on thf> second trial of the apostles,* his 
Pharisaic prejudices must have been intensified, while his knowledge 
of the law was enlarged, and his zeal for it inflamed. 

A youth of Paul's intellectual capacity would be expected to make 
rapid advances with the opportunities which he now enjoyed, and so, 
he tells us, he did. "I made progress in the Jew's religion above 
many my equals in age in my own nation, being more exceedingly 
zealous for the traditions of my fathers."! This pre-eminence among 
his school-fellows was accompanied by the strictest propriety of relig- 
ious deportment; so that he could appeal, after the lapse of many 
years, to those who knew him in his youth, though now his enemies, 
to testify that, "according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived 
a Pharisee." J He could even declare that he was, "touching the 
righteousness that is in the law, blameless. "H Such was his charac- 
ter, and his reputation, when he finished his course of instruction in 
the school of Gamaliel. 

If the usual supposition concerning Saul's age is correct, it is not 
probable that he was in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, or 
for several years previous. If he had been, it would be unaccounta- 
ble that in all his epistles he makes no allusion to a personal knowl- 
edge of Jesus. The supposition that he was at that time still confined 
in the school of Gamaliel is not only inconsistent with his supposed 
age, which could not have been less than thirty at the time he is 
introduced to us, but it is insufficient to account for his ignorance of 
events over which the very children of Jerusalem rejoiced. § The sup- 
position that he left the school and returned to Tarsus previous to the 
immersion preached by John, and reappeared in Jerusalem after the 
ascension of Jesus, is most agreeable to all the known facts in the 
case. By an absence of a few years he had not forfeited his former 
reputation, but appears now as a leader in the movements against the 
Church. We have already, in commenting on Acts vi: 9, ventured 
the assumption, that among the Cilicians there mentioned as oppo- 
nents of Stephen. Saul bore a leading part as a disputant. Such a 
position his superior learning and piety would naturally assign him, 
and his prominence at the stoning of Stephen affords evidence in favor 
of this assumption. The law required that the witnesses upon whose 
testimony an idolater was condemned to death should throw the first 
stones, in the execution of the sentence.^ In accordance with this 
law, the witnesses against Stephen, preparatory to their cruel work, 
laid off their cumbrous outer-garments at the feet of Saul, who "was 
consenting to his death."** After the death of Stephen, he still main- 
tained the position of a leader, and continued to commit men and 
women to prison, until the Church was entirely dispersed. Many of 
those committed to prison met with the fate of Stephen. This fact is 
not stated by Luke, but is confessed by Paul in his speech before 
Agrippa.f-j- Many others were beaten in the synagogues, and com- 
pelled to blaspheme the name of Jesus as the condition of release 
from their tortures. £ £ 

* Acts v : 34-39. f Gal - 1 : 14 - t Acts xxvi : 5. || Phil, iii : 6. g Matt, xxi : 15. 
If Deut. xvii : 7. ** Acts vii : 58 ; xxii : 20. ft x *vi : 10. }1 xxii : 19 ; xxvi : 11. 



ACTS IX: 1-3. 



115 



After the congregation in Jerusalem had been dispersed, Saul doubt- 
less thought that the sect was effectually crushed. But soon the news 
came floating back from every quarter, that the scattered disciples 
were building up congregations in every direction. One less determ- 
ined than Saul might have despaired of final success in destroying a 
cause which had thus far been promoted by every attack made upon 
it, and which even sprung up with increasing strength from apparent 
destruction. But his was a nature which gathered new resolution as 
obstacles multiplied before him; and thus he appears in the present 
text, which, after so long delay, we must now have before us. (1) " But 
Saul, yet breathing out threatening and sloMghter against the disciples of the 
Lord, went to the high priest, (2) and requested from him letters to the 
synagogues in Damascus, that, if he found any of that way, whether men 
or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem." 

Why he selected Damascus as the scene of his first enterprise, rather 
than some of the cities of Judea, is acknowledged by Olshausen as 
"difficult to determine." But when we remember the sensitiveness of 
patriots, in reference to the reputation of their country and its institu- 
tions in foreign lands, the difficulty disappears. The ancestral religion 
of the Jew was his pride and boast in every land. It was bitter 
enough to the proud Pharisee that it should be brought into disrepute 
among a portion of the population at home; but when the hated au- 
thors of this reproach began to spread it abroad in surrounding king- 
doms, it was beyond endurance. When the news reached Jerusalem 
that this dishonoring heresy had begun to spread in the ancient and 
celebrated city of Damascus, where thousands of Jews then lived, and 
had obtained a religious influence over a large portion of the popula- 
tion, the exasperation of the Pharisees knew no bounds, and Saul, 
with characteristic ardor, started in pursuit of the fugitives. He had 
reason, of course, to believe, that, upon requisition of the high priest, 
the authorities of Damascus, which was then embraced within the 
dominions of the Arabian king Aretas, would deliver up the disciples 
as fugitives from justice. That he was correct in this is sufficiently 
demonstrated by the zeal with which the governor afterward lent the 
aid of his guards to the orthodox Jews, for the purpose of seizing Saul 
himself.* 

3. The storm of passion with which Saul started from Jerusalem 
would naturally subside, in some degree, in the course of the five or 
six days necessary to perform on foot the journey of one hundred and 
forty miles, leaving him in a calmer mood, and better prepared for the 
scenes which transpired near the close of the journey. (3) "And as he 
journeyed, he came near to Damascus, and suddenly there flashed around 
him a light from heaven." This occurred at noon, when the sun was 
shining with full meridian strength upon the sandy plain which he 
was traversing,! yet the light from heaven was "above the brightness 
of the sun. "J 

We are now fairly introduced to the history of Saul's conversion, 

* Comp. ix : 23-24, with 2 Cor. xi : 32. 

f For a description of the natural scenery, see Life and Epistles of Paul, vol. i. page 86. 
Throughout the remainder of this volume I will draw freely from the rich resources of 
this valuable and exhaustive work. % Acts xxvi : 13. 



116 



ACTS IX: 4-6. 



and must note carefully the entire process, both with reference to the 
specific changes effected, and the influences which produced them. In 
order thai we may have the case fully before us, we will draw upon 
the parallel passages in the twenty-second and twenty-sixth chapters 
for such additional facts as they furnish. 

4. "And he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying tojxim, Saul, 
Saul, why do you persecute me?" He not only heard this voice, but, 
gazing, while his eyes could endure it, into the midst of the glory, he 
saw distinctly the being who spoke to him.* The question he heard, 
by the simple force of the word persecute, carried his mind forward to 
his bloody purpose in Damascus, and back to his bloody deeds in Jeru- 
salem. Nor was this the only involuntary motion of his mind upon 
the instant; for here we must locate the additional words, "It is hard 
for thee to kick against the goads. "f This language reveals to us that 
Saul's conscience had not been altogether at rest during his persecu- 
tions, but that, like an unruly ox, he had been kicking against a goad, 
which urged him to a different course. Although he had acted igno- 
rantly, and in unbelief, yet it was with so many misgivings, that he 
ever afterward regarded himself as the chief of sinners, having been 
the chief of persecutors. J His conscience must have been instanta- 
neously aroused by this reference to its past goadings. 

5, 6. Though his conscience was now aroused, and he knew full 
well that the vision before him was from heaven, he can not compre- 
hend it until he knows who it is that speaks to him and asserts him 
self the object of his persecutions. (5) u And he said, Who art thou, 
Lord f And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute." It is im- 
possible for us, who have been familiar with the glory of our risen Savior 
from our infancy, to fully appreciate the feelings which must have 
flashed, like lightning, into the soul of Saul, upon hearing these words. 
Up to this moment he had supposed Jesus an impostor, cursed of God 
and man; and his followers blasphemers worthy of death; but now, 
this despised being is suddenly revealed to him in a blaze of divine 
glory. The evidence of his eyes and ears can not be doubted. There 
he stands, with the light of heaven and the glory of God around him, 
and he says, " I am Jesus !" " Now is Jesus risen from the dead, and 
become the first fruits of them that slept." Stephen was a blessed 
martyr, and I have shed innocent blood. My soul is guilty. u 0 
wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death ?" I have gloried in my shame. All that I have gained is lost. 
It is filth and refuse. I will throw myself upon his mercy. (6) u And 
he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to 
do ?" The die is cast. The proud spirit yields, and the whole mighty 
current of that soul is turned back in its channel, to flow forever, deeply 
and strongly, in the opposite direction. 

The glorious power of the one great gospel proposition was never 
more forcibly illustrated than on this occasion. A moment ago, Saul 
was sternly, and with fearful calmness, pressing to the destruction of 
the cause of Jesus, but now he is a trembling suppliant at his feet. 
What has produced this change? It is not the fact that he has seen 
a light, and heard a voice. For when he fell to the ground in alarm, 
* 1 Cor. xv : 8. | Acts xxvi '- t 1 Tim - * ' 13^-15. 



ACTS IX: 6. 



117 



his unbelief and ignorance still remained, and lie still had to ask the 
question, "Who art thou?" Thus far, he is no more convinced that 
Jesus is the Christ than he was before; but he is convinced that the 
vision is divine, and this prepares him to believe what he may further 
hear. When that heavenly being, whose word he can not doubt, says, 
" I am Jesus," one new conviction, that must, from its very nature, 
reverse all the purposes of his life, takes possession of his soul. To 
stifle its effects he is not able; to resist its impulse is contrary to the 
honesty of his nature; and he has no time, if he would, to steel his 
heart against it. The change flashes over him in an instant, and he 
lies there a penitent believer. The word of the Lord, miraculously 
attested, gives him faith. The conviction that Jesus, whom he had 
persecuted in the person of his disciples, is really the Lord of glory, 
brings him to repentance. He mourns over his sins, and yields his 
will. These facts reveal the glorious simplicity of gospel salvation ; 
and while we contemplate them, the sickly talk about " irresistible 
grace," which floats, like the green scum on a stagnant pool, over the 
pages of many commentaries, in reference to this conversion, is swept 
away, while the sights and sounds which haunt the memory of many 
a superstitious convert are driven back to dwell with the ghosts and 
hobgoblins of a night of ignorance now nearly gone. 

To the question, What wilt thou have me to do ? the Lord gave an 
answer which naturally divides itself into two parts. One part is given 
by Luke, in the verse before us, and by Paul, in his speech to the 
Jerusalem mob ; the other, in the speech before Agrippa. The latter 
contains his commission as an apostle, and is expressed in these words : 
11 1 have appeared to thee for this purpose, to appoint thee a minister and 
a witness of the things which thou hast seen, and of those in which 
I will appear to thee, delivering thee from the people and the Gentiles, 
to whom I now send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from 
darkness to light, and from the authority of Satan to God, that they 
may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among the sanctified, 
by faith in me."* In this sentence, which we will notice more at 
length in its proper connection, Jesus states the object of his personal 
appearance to Saul, and gives him his commission as an apostle. The 
former was necessary to the latter; for an apostle must be a witness 
of the resurrection, f and this he could not be without having seen 
him alive since his crucifixion. £ Having now seen him, not only 
alive, but glorified, his evidence was afterward classed with that of the 
original apostles and witnesses. || If he had been converted without 
having seen the Lord, he would not have been an apostle, unless the 
Lord had afterward appeared to him to make him one. Instead of this, 
the Lord chose to appear to him in connection with his conversion. 
While this appearance was necessary to his apostleship, we may not 
assume that it was necessary to his conversion, unless we take the 
strange position that it was impossible for him to be convinced in any 
other way. 

Before Saul could enter upon the office of an apostle, it was neces- 
sary that he should become a citizen of the kingdo'm of which he was 
to be a chief officer. The other portion of the Savior's reply has 

* Acts xxvi : 16-18. f See Com. i : 22. % 1 Cor. ix : 1. || 1 Cor. xv : 8. 



118 



ACTS IX: 7. 



reference to his duty in this particular. It is stated by Luke in these 
words, constituting the last clause of verse 6, of which we have already 
quoted a part: "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what 
thou must do." Saul's own statement of it is more minute: "Arise, 
and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all 
the things which are appointed for thee to do." The things which he 
was to do as an apostle had just been told him, and concerning these 
there had been no previous appointment. The things which had been 
appointed for him to do concerned him in common with all other peni- 
tent sinners. These having been already appointed by the Lord him- 
self, and their execution committed to the hands of faithful men, the 
Lord shows respect to his own transfer of authority, by sending the 
suppliant to Damascus to learn them. 

During his personal ministry, Jesus sometimes spoke pardon, at 
once, to penitent sinners.* But, since his resurrection from the dead, 
and the appointment, by formal enactment, of the terms of pardon, 
there is no instance of this kind. Moreover, his refusal to tell Saul 
his appointed duty, or to pardon him on the spot, establishes the pre- 
sumption that he will not do so in any case. If there ever was an 
occasion on which we would expect the glorified Savior to speak par- 
don, in person, to a sinner, it is here, when he is in actual conversa- 
tion with the penitent, and the request is formally preferred. But he 
refuses to do so. Those, therefore, who imagine themselves to have 
received a direct communication of pardon from Christ, either orally, 
or by an abstract spiritual agency, are deluded. They claim for them- 
selves what was not accorded to Saul, and what is inconsistent with 
the order established in the kingdom of Christ. The reply to all 
inquirers, if Christ should now speak, would be, as it was then, Go to 
Damascus, and it shall be told you ; Gro to the apostles and evangelists 
of the New Covenant, and the answer will now be given you by Peter, 
Philip, Ananias, in the same words, and by the same authority, that 
it was then. 

7. While the conversation was passing between Saul and Jesus, the 
conduct of his companions is thus described by Luke. (7) u Now, the 
men who were journeying with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but 
seeing no man." Paul gives a different account of their demeanor, by 
saying that they all fell to the ground;^ but the two accounts har- 
monize very naturall} r . The first effect of such an apparition would 
naturally be to prostrate them all ; but his companions, not being held 
in this position by any direct address to them, would naturally arise 
after the first shock was over, and, fleeing to a safe distance, there 
stand gazing, in mute terror, upon the glory which enveloped their 
leader. This supposition is confirmed by the fact that Paul represents 
the falling to the earth as occurring before the voice was heard, while 
their standing speechless is connected by Luke with the close of the 
conversation. 

This supposition helps to account for a well-known verbal discrep- 
ancy between these two accounts. Luke says they heard the voice; 
Paul says "they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me." The 
discrepancy arises from the ambiguous use of the verb hear. There is 
* Matt, ix : 16 ; Luke vii : 37-50. t Acts xxvi • 14 « 



ACTS IX: 8-12. 



119 



nothing more common, among all nations, than for one who is listen- 
ing to a speaker, but, either from his own confusion or the indistinct- 
ness of the speaker's articulation, can only catch an occasional word, 
to exclaim, "I don't hear you;" although the sound of the voice 
reaches him continually. It is in this sense of the word hear, that the 
companions of Saul, in the confusion of their effort to escape from the 
scene, failed to hear the voice. They heard the sound, but did not un- 
derstand the words. 

8, 9. When the vision disappeared, Saul promptly obeyed the com- 
mandment given him. (8) "And Saul was raised from the earth, but 
when his eyes were opened he saw no one, and they led him by the hand 
and brought him into Damascus. (9) And he was there three days with- 
out seeing, and did neither eat nor drink." The ph} r sical effect of the 
intense light into which he had gazed upon his eyesight was not more 
painful than the moral effect of the whole scene upon his conscience. 
The former made him blind; the latter filled him with remorse. To 
this feeling alone can we attribute his total abstinence from food and 
drink. The awful crime of fighting murderously against God and 
Christ was pressing upon his soul, and as yet he knew not what to do 
that he might obtain pardon. His Jewish education, if not his natural 
instinct, prompted him to pray, and this he was doing with all fervor;* 
but the hands he lifted up were stained with blood — the blood of mar- 
tyrs; and how could he hope to be heard? ]S!o penitent ever had 
greater cause for sorrow, or wept more bitterly than he. 

10-12. While this scene of anguish was transpiring in the presence 
of the astonished Jews who surrounded Saul, the Lord was not un- 
mindful of the promise he had made him. As he had sent him to 
Damascus to learn what to do, he provides for him a teacher. (10) 
"Now there was a certain disciple in Damascus, named Ananias. And 
the Lord said to him in a vision, Ananias ! And he said, Behold, I am 
here, Lord. (11) And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go upon the 
street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas, for one named 
Said of Tarsus. For behold, he is praying, (12) and has seen in a vision 
a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand upon him that he 
might receive his sight." It will be observed, that, in these directions, 
the Lord does not tell Ananias what to tell Saul to do. This omission 
only proves that Ananias already knew perfectly what such a person 
should be told to do, and corresponds with the fact that the things in 
which he was to be instructed were " the things appointed for him to do." 

It is well to pause for a moment here, and inquire what progress has 
been made toward the conversion of Saul, and by what means the 
progress made has been effected. That he is now a believer, it is im- 
possible for any man who has followed the narrative intelligibly to 
doubt. That he is also a penitent is equally certain. But the Holy 
Spirit — by whose direct agency alone, it is taught by many, a man can 
be brought to faith and repentance — has not yet been imparted to him, 
nor does he receive it till after the appearance of Ananias. f Such an 
agency of the Spirit, then, is not necessary to faith and repentance. 
Moreover, as we have already observed, the only influence yet brought 
to bear upon him was that of the words of Jesus, proved to be of divine 



* Verse xi. 



f Verse xvii. 



120 



ACTS IX: 13-16. 



authority by the miraculous vision. He was convinced, then, by the 
same means that the eunuch and the three thousand on Pentecost had 
been, by the word of the Lord miraculously attested. His case differs 
from both of those, in that the Lord himself was his preacher, instead 
of an inspired man; and from that of the eunuch, in that the miracu- 
lous attestation was a physical display in his case, and the fulfillment 
of prophesy in the eunuch's. The nature of the influences was the 
same in them all. 

Saul is now a believer, and a penitent believer ; but he is not yet jus- 
tified. The theory, therefore, drawn from his own words in the epistle 
to the Romans, that a man is justified by faith only, the moment he 
believes, is proved false by Paul's own experience. He says, " Being 
justified by faith, we have peace with God."* But he had faith for 
three days before he was justified, or obtained peace with God. Inter- 
preting his words, then, by his experience, we conclude that men are 
justified, not by faith only, nor the moment they believe, but when 
they are led by faith, as he was, to do what is appointed for penitent 
believers to do. 

There is another fact in the case worthy of notice just here. There 
is some such necessity for the co-operation of a fellow-man, in order 
to one's conversion, that, although the Lord himself has appeared to 
Saul, and conversed with him, he can not find peace of mind, though 
he weeps and groans and prays for three days and nights, until Ana- 
nias comes to him. In this particular, also, his case is like that of the 
eunuch, whose conversion could not be effected, though an angel had 
been sent from heaven, and the Spirit had operated miraculously, un- 
til the man Philip took his seat in the chariot. The necessity, in his 
case, differs from that of the eunuch, in that he needed not the man to 
preach Jesus to him; for this had already been done by Jesus himself. 
But there was something to be done before he obtained pardon, which 
a man must do; and the sequel will show what that something is. In 
the mean time, let it be observed, that all these pretended conversions 
of the present day, which are completely effected while the subject is 
in his bed at night, or alone in the grove, or praying in some solitary 
place, lack this something of being scriptural conversions. No man 
was so converted in the days of the apostles. 

13-16. Ananias had already heard of Saul, doubtless through fugi- 
tive brethren from Jerusalem, and such was the horror which his 
name inspired, that he was reluctant to approach him, even when 
commanded by the Lord to do so. (13) " Then Ananias answered, 
Lord, I have heard from many concerning this man, how much evil he 
has done to thy saints who are in Jerusalem, (14) and here he has au- 
thority from the high priests to bind all who call on thy name. (15) But 
the Lord said to him, Go ; for he is to me a chosen vessel, to bear my 
name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. (16) For 
I will show to him how great things he must suffer on account of my 
name." Here we have a statement that the Lord had made a special 
choice of Saul for a certain work, and a prediction that he would suffer 
in the execution of it. The latter demonstrates the foreknowledge 
of God concerning human conduct, and the former shows that he 

* Bom. v : 1. 



ACTS IX: 17-19. 



121 



makes choice beforehand of suitable individuals to execute bis pur- 
poses. 

17-19. The assurance given by the Lord was sufficient to remove 
his fears. (17) 11 And Ananias went away and entered into the house, and 
laid hands upon him, and said, BrotJier Saul, the Lord, even Jesus who 
appeared to you in the road in which you came, has sent me that you may 
receive sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (18) And immediately 
there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received sight forth- 
with, and arose and was immersed; (19) and taking food, he was strength- 
ened!' In laying hands on Saul to restore his eyesight, Ananias 
imitated the example of Jesus, who wrought similar miracles, at one 
time by touching the eyes of the blind,f and at another by putting 
clay on them and directing that it be washed away.f 

It is quite common to assume that Ananias also conferred the Holy 
Spirit upon him, by imposition of hands. But this is neither stated 
nor implied in the text; nor is there any evidence that any besides the 
apostles ever exercised the power of imparting the Spirit. The fact 
that this power is not known to have been exercised by any other 
than the apostles, establishes a strong presumption that it was not 
exercised by Ananias. This presumption, in the entire absence of 
proof to the contrary, would alone be conclusive. We do not forget 
that Ananias says, " J esus has sent me that you may be filled with 
the Holy Spirit." This shows that his reception of the Spirit in some 
way depended upon the presence of Ananias, but does not imply that 
he received it by imposition of hands. All the other apostles received 
it direct from heaven, without human agency. % They also received it 
after they had been immersed; for the fact that Jesus preached the 
immersion of John, and caused the twelve to administer it under his 
eye, is proof that they themselves had submitted to it. Moreover, in 
every other case in the New Testament, with the single exception of 
Cornelius, the gift of miraculous power followed immersion. These 
facts furnish a firm basis for the conclusion that Saul's inspiration 
was awaiting his immersion ; and that it depended upon the visit of 
Ananias, because he was sent to immerse him that he might receive 
pardon and be filled with the Holy Spirit. To conclude otherwise 
would be to make his case an exception to that of all the other apos- 
tles in reference to manner of receiving the Spirit, and to nearly all 
other disciples, including the apostles, in reference to the time of 
receiving it. 

The manner in which Ananias proceeded when he reached the 
house of Judas presents a most remarkable contrast with the course 
of most Protestant preachers of the present da} r . Leaving out of view 
the miraculous restoration of Saul's eyesight, Ananias was simply sent 
to a man in a certain house, who had been a persecutor, but was now 
praying. He has no special directions as to the instruction he shall 
give the man, but is left to his own previous knowledge of what is 
proper in such cases. He comes into the house, and finds him pros- 
trate upon the floor, almost exhausted from want of food and drink, 
which his wretchedness makes him refuse; and he is still praying in 
great agony. No man of this generation can hesitate as to the course 



* Matt, ix : 29. 
11 



f John ix : 6. 



\ Acts ii : 1-4. 



122 



ACTS IX: 17-19. 



one of our modern preachers would pursue in such a case. He would 
at once urge him to pray on, and quote to him many passages of 
Scripture in reference to the answer of prayer. He would tell him to 
believe in the Lord Jesus, and that the moment he would cast his 
soul entirely upon him he would be relieved. He would pray with 
him. Long and fervently would he call upon God to have mercy on 
the waiting sinner, and send down the Holy Ghost to speak peace to 
his troubled soul. If these efforts did not bring relief, other brethren 
and sisters would be called in, and their prayers united with those of 
the preacher. Pathetic hymns would alternate with zealous prayers 
and warm exhortations, until both the mourner and his comforters 
were exhausted, the latter every moment expecting to hear from their 
wretched victim a shout of joy, as the touch of God would roll away 
the burden from his soul. If all these efforts failed, the man would 
go mourning over his still unpardoned sins, perhaps for the remainder 
of his life. Fortunate would it be for him, if the terrible conclusion 
that all religion is but hypocrisy, or that he himself is an inevitable 
reprobate, did not take possession of his soul. This picture is not 
overdrawn; for my readers can testify that far deeper colors could be 
spread over it, by copying accurately from many thousands of cases 
which have occurred in popular "revivals." 

Such is the baleful influence of this gross departure from the word 
of God, that men who are under its influence are constantly denounc- 
ing as heretics those who venture to follow the example of Ananias. 
He finds the man to whom he is sent, praying to the Lord Jesus ; but, 
instead of commanding him to pray on, and praying with him, he 
says to him, " Why do you tarry ? Arise, and be immersed, and wash 
away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." * There are many 
Churches at the present day, professing to derive their creeds from the 
Bible, whose clergy dare not follow this example, upon pain of excom- 
munication. Engaged in a public debate, a few years since, with a 
Doctor of Divinity of a numerous and powerful party, I determined to 
apply to him a test which had been employed before by some of my 
brethren, and charged that he dare not, as he valued his ministerial 
position, and even his membership in the Church, give to mourners 
seeking salvation the answers given by inspired men, in the very 
words which they employed. He interrupted me, by asking if I 
intended to insinuate that he would not preach what he believed to be 
the truth. I replied, that I had no disposition to question his honesty, 
but that I was stating a startling fact, which ought to be made to 
ring in the ears of the people. I then told the audience I would put 
my statement to a test at once, and turning to the Doctor, I said : " Sir, 
if you had a number of mourners before you, as Peter had on Pente- 
cost, pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and exclaiming, "What 
shall we do? would you dare to say to them, 1 Repent and be baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,/©?- the remission of sins, 
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?' Or, if you were 
called into a private house, like Ananias, to see a man fasting and 
weeping and praying, would you dare to say to him, ' Why do you 
tarry ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on 
* Acts xxii : 1G. 



ACTS IX : 19-22. 



123 



the name of the Lord?' I pause for a reply." T stood waiting, and 
the immense audience held their breath, until the silence became 
painful ; but the Doctor hung his head and answered not one word. 

It is high time that the people were won back from such delusions, 
and made to feel the necessity of following the word of God. Ana- 
nias was guided by the apostolic commission. Seeing there were 
three conditions of pardon, faith, repentance, and immersion, and that 
Saul had already complied with the first two, he does not tantalize 
him by telling him to believe or urging him to repent, but commands 
him to do the one thing which he had not yet done, "Arise, and be 
immersed." He instantly obeyed; and then, for the first time since 
he saw the vision by the way, he was sufficiently composed to take 
food and drink. "Taking food, he was strengthened." Like the 
eunuch, it was after he came up out of the water that he rejoiced. 

His composure and peace of mind, after being immersed, was the 
proper result of intelligent obedience in that institution. If he had 
not already learned its design, by what he knew of apostolic preaching, 
the words of Ananias conveyed it without ambiguity. To a sinner 
mourning over his guilt, seeking pardon, and knowing that the Lord 
alone could forgive sins, the command to be immersed and wash away 
his sins could convey but one idea, that, upon the washing of water over 
the body in immersion, the Lord would remove his sins by forgiving 
them. That such was the idea intended in the metaphorical expression, 
" wash away," would need no argument, if it had not suited the theories 
of modern sectaries to call it in question. It is a common assumption 
that Saul's sins had been really forgiven before his immersion, and 
Ananias required him only to formally wash them away. But this is 
a mere combination of words to hide the absence of an idea. How 
can a man formally do a thing which has already been really done, 
unless it be by going through & form which is empty and deceptive? 
If Saul's sins were already washed away, then he did not wash them 
away in immersion, and the language of Ananias was deceptive. Bat 
it is an indisputable fact, that at the time Ananias gave him this com- 
mand he was still unhappy, and, therefore, unforgiven. Immediately 
after he was immersed, he was happy ; and the change took place in 
the mean time, which connects it with his immersion. In precise 
accordance, therefore, with the commission, with Peter's answer on 
Pentecost, and with the eunuch's experience, his sins were forgiven 
when he was immersed. 

These individual cases of conversion are of great value to one study- 
ing the plan of salvation, because they present more in detail the entire 
process than can be done in describing the conversion of a multitude. 
We now have before us two such, and will have a third in the tenth 
chapter, when we will find it profitable to institute a close comparison 
between them.* 

19-22. No sooner had Saul obeyed the gospel and obtained pardon, 
than he began to devote all his energies to building up what ho had 
sought to destroy. (19) u Then Saul was some days with the disciples in 
Damascus, (20) and immediately he preached Christ in the synag • >yiLcs^ 
that this is the Son of God. (21) And all who heard him were aston- 
* Seo Com. x : 47, 48. 



• 



124 



ACTS IX: 19-22. 



ished, and said, Is not this he who destroyed those in Jerusalem xoho 
called upon this name, and came hither for this purpose, that he might 
take them bound to the high priests? (22) But Saul increased the more 
in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving 
that this is the Christy The one great gospel proposition, that Jesus 
is the Christ and the Son of God, the belief of which had wrought in 
him all the wondrous change on the road to Damascus, is now his 
constant theme. The synagogues bemg for a time open to him, and 
the curiosity of the people intensely excited, in reference to his change 
of conduct, it is probable that he had more ready access to the unbe- 
lieving Jews in Damascus than had been enjoyed by those who pre- 
ceded him. Whatever opponents he encountered, were "confounded" 
by the proofs he presented. 

In addition to proofs employed by the other apostles and teachers, 
Saul stood up in the synagogues as a new and independent witness of 
the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. He had seen him alive, 
and arrayed in divine glory. He had conversed with him face to face. 
If any man doubted the truth of his statements in reference to the 
vision, his traveling companions, who saw the same light, and heard 
the same voice, could testify with him. If any man, still incredulous, 
ventured the supposition that all of them were deceived by an optical 
illusion, or by some human trickster, the actual blindness which re- 
mained after the vision had passed away, and was witnessed by both 
believers and unbelievers, proved, indisputably, that it was a reality. 
No illusion or deception could have -produced this effect. If it were 
suspected that Saul and his companions had made up the story, in 
order to deceive, the suspicion was silenced by the fact that the blind- 
ness was real, and could not be feigned. Whether, therefore, they 
regarded him as honest or dishonest, such was the combination of facts 
that they could not find an excuse for doubting his testimony. No 
wonder that he " confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus." 

Such was the force of Saul's testimony, as it was addressed to his 
cotemporaries in Damascus. To others, not eye-witnesses of his career, 
and to men of subsequent generations, it stands thus: If the vision 
which he claimed to have witnessed was a reality, then Jesus is the 
Christ, and his religion is divine. But if it was not a reality, then 
Saul was deceived, or was himself a deceiver. His blindness precludes 
the supposition that he could have been deceived. Was he, then, a 
deceiver? His whole subsequent career declares that he was not. All 
the motives, in reference to both time and eternity, which can prompt 
men to deception, were arrayed against the course he was pursuing. 
His reputation among men, his hopes of wealth and power, his love 
of friendship, and his personal safety, all demanded that he should 
adhere to his former religious position. In making the change, he 
sacrificed them all, and, if he was practicing deception, he exposed 
himself, also, to whatever punishment he might suppose the wicked to 
incur in eternity. It is possible to believe that a man might, through 
miscalculation as to the immediate results, begin to practice a deception 
which would involve such consequences; but it is entirely incredible 
that he should continue to do so after his mistake was discovered, and 
persist in it through a long life of unparalleled sufferings. It is in- 



ACTS IX: 23-25. 



125 



credible, therefore, tliat Saul was a deceiver. And, as lie was neither 
deceived himself, nor a deceiver of others, his vision must have been a 
reality, and Jesus is the Christ. 

There is no way to evade the force of this argument, except by deny- 
ing Luke's account of Saul's career, after his supposed conversion. But 
this would be to deny to Luke even the ordinary credibility attached 
to ancient history; for the argument depends not upon miracles, but 
upon the ordinary events of Saul's life, which are in themselves most 
credible. SujDposing this much to be granted, as a basis for the argu- 
ment, (and it is granted by all who are acquainted with history,) the 
proof of the Messiahship of Jesus from the conversion of Saul is per- 
fectly conclusive. 

23-25. Saul now begins to see enacted in Damascus scenes similar 
to those in which he had played a part in Jerusalem; but his own 
position is reversed. He begins to experience, in his turn, the ill-treat- 
ment which he had heaped upon others. (23) u Now, when many days 
were fulfilled, the Jews determined to kill him; (24) but their plot was 
known to Saul; and they watched the gates, day and night, that they 
might kill him. (25) Then the disciples took him by night, and let him 
down through the wall in a basket." The Jews were not alone in this 
plot. Dwelling as strangers in a foreign city, they would hardly have 
ventured upon so murderous an undertaking without the connivance 
of the authorities. Paul himself informs us that the governor of the 
city lent them his active co-operation. He says: " In Damascus, the 
governor under Aretas, the king, kept watch over the city with a gar- 
rison, desiring to apprehend me."* From the same passage in Second 
Corinthians, we learn that it was through a window in the wall that 
he was let down. Even to the present day there are houses in Damas- 
cus built against the wall, with the upper stories projecting beyond 
the top of the wall, and containing windows which would anwer 
admirably for such a mode of escape. The observations of modern 
travelers are constantly bringing to light topographical facts which 
accord most happily with the inspired narrative. Another such is the 
fact that there is yet a street in Damascus running in a straight line 
from the eastern gate for about a mile, to the palace of the Pasha, 
which can be no other than "the street called Straight," on which 
Judas lived, and where Ananias found Saul.-j- 

It was three years from the time of his conversion that Saul made 
this escape from Damascus. The whole of this period had not been 
spent in that city, but he had made a preaching tour into Arabia, and 
returned to Damascus. This we learn from his own pen : " I conferred 
not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who 
were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again 
into Damascus. Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see 
Peter." \ It is quite probable that some excitement attendant upon 
his preaching in other parts of the dominions of King Aretas had 
some influence in securing the ready co-operation of the Arabian gov- 
ernor with the Jews, in trying to take his life. 

26, 27. The mortification of Saul at being compelled to thus escape 
from Damascus was remembered for many years, to be mentioned 

* 2 Cor. xi : 32, 33. \ Kitto's Encyclopedia, Art. Damascus. \ Gal. i : 1C-18. 



126 



ACTS IX: 26-30. 



when lie would "glory in the things which concerned his infirmi- 
ties."* He had not yet seen any of those who were apostles before 
him since he left them in Jerusalem to go on his murderous mission 
to Damascus. He turns his steps in that direction, resolved to go up 
and see Peter. f We will not attempt to depict the probable emotions 
of the now devout apostle, as the walls of Jerusalem and the towering 
hight of the temple came once more into view. As he approached the 
gate of the city, he passed by the spot where Stephen was stoned, and 
where he himself had stood, "consenting to his death." He was 
about to meet again, on the streets, and in the synagogues, his old 
allies whom he had deserted, and the disciples whom he had perse- 
cuted. The tumult of emotions which the scenes about him must 
have excited, we leave to the imagination of the reader, and the pages 
of more voluminous writers.^ We know the reception which awaited 
him both from friends and foes. (26) "And vjhen he arrived in Jeru- 
salem he attempted to join himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid 
of him, not believing that he was a disciple. (27) But Barnabas took 
him and brought him, to the apostles, and related to them how he had 
seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he 
had spoken boldly in Damascus in the name of Jesus." This ignorance 
of the brethren in reference to the events of the past three years in 
Damascus is somewhat surprising; but it only proves that they had 
no rapid means of communication with the brethren in that city.' It is 
not probable that Barnabas had any means of information not enjoyed 
by the other brethren. Doubtless he obtained his information from 
Saul's own lips, either because he was prompted to do so by the gen- 
erous impulses of his own heart, or because Saul, having some knowl- 
edge of his generosity, sought him out as the one most likely to give 
him a candid hearing. In either case, it would not be difficult for 
him to credit the unvarnished story, told, as it must have been, with 
an earnestness and pathos which no impostor could assume. When 
Barnabas was once convinced, it was easy for him to convince the 
apostles; and the warm sympathy which he manifested for Saul was 
the begiuning of a friendship between them which was fruitful in 
blessings to the Church and to the world. 

28, 29. Though the brethren, even at the solicitation of Barnabas, 
may have received him with some misgivings, the course he pursued 
soon won their confidence. (28) "And he was with them coming in and 
going out in Jerusalem, (29) and spoke boldly in the name of the Lord 
Jems, and disputed against the Hellenists ; but they undertook to kill 
him.' 1 During his three years' absence from. Jerusalem, the persecu- 
tion of which he had been the leader had so far abated that the Hel- 
lenists were once more willing to debate the points at issue. But they 
found in their new opponent one equally invincible with Stephen, and, 
in the madness of defeat, resolved that Stephen's fate should be his. 

30. In this emergency, the brethren found opportunity to make 
amends for the suspicion with which they had at first regarded him. 
(30) 11 And when the brethren knew this, they took him down to Cwsarea, 
and sent him forth to Tarsus." We learn, from Paul's own account of 
this movement, that it was not controlled by his own judgment, nor 
* 2 Cor. xi : 3Q-33. t Ga*« * > 18 - X See Wfe and Ep.., vol. 1, p. 101. 



ACTS IX: 30. 



127 



entirely by that of the brethren. While praying in the temple, he fell 
into a trance, in which the Lord appeared to him, and said, "Make 
haste, and get quickly out of Jerusalem ; for they will not receive your 
testimony concerning me." Saul had, himself, come to a very different 
conclusion. Notwithstanding the murderous disposition of his oppo- 
nents, he still believed that his labors among them would prove suc- 
cessful. He argued upon the supposition that his former position as a 
persecutor, like them, would now give peculiar weight, with them, to 
his testimony and arguments; and he ventured to urge this considera- 
tion upon the attention of the Lord: "Lord, they know that I am im- 
prisoned and beat in every synagogue those who believe on thee; and 
when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I was myself stand- 
ing by and consenting to his death, and keeping the raiment of those 
who slew him." But he had erred in overlooking the peculiar odium 
attached to the character of one who could be styled a deserter, in- 
clining men to listen more favorably to an habitual opponent than to 
him. The Lord did not argue the case with him, but peremptorily 
commanded him, "Depart; for I will send you far hence to the Gen- 
tiles."* The fears of the brethren were confirmed by this decision of 
the Lord, and they promptly sent hyn to a place of safety. 

After reaching Csesarea, a short voyage on the Mediterranean and 
up the Cydnus brought him to Tarsus, the home of his childhood, 
and perhaps of his earlier manhood. He returns to his aged parents 
and the friends of his childhood, a fugitive from two great cities, and 
a deserter from that strictest sect in which he had been educated ; but 
he comes to bring them glad tidings of great joy. He disappears, at 
this point, from the pages of Luke; but he does not retire into inac- 
tivity. His own pen fills up the blank that is left here by the histo- 
rian. He says that he went "into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 
and was unknown by face to the Churches in Judea who were in 
Christ; but they heard only that he who once persecuted us is now 
preaching the faith which he once destroyed. And they glorified God 
in me."f Not long after this we find mention of brethren in Syria and 
Cilicia, which renders it probable that his labors there were attended 
with his usual success. We have reason also to believe that he 
encountered, during this interval, a portion of the sufferings enumer- 
ated in the eleventh chapter of Second Corinthians ; such as the five 
times that he received from the Jews forty stripes save one, the three 
shipwrecks, and the night and day that he spent in the deep. We can 
not refer them to a later period; for, from this interval to the time of 
writing that epistle, we have a continuous history of his life, in which 
they do not occur. 

We now part company with Saul for a time, and while he is per- 
forming labors, and enduring afflictions, the full detail of which we 
will never learn till we meet him in eternity, we turn with our inspired 
guide, to contemplate some instructive scenes in the labors of the 
Apostle Peter. 

31. Preparatory to this transition in the narrative, the historian 
glances rapidly over the territory to which we are about to be intro- 
duced, stating the condition of things immediately after Saul's depart- 
* Acta xxii : 17-21. f Gal. i : 21-21. 



128 



ACTS IX: 31-41. 



lire for Tarsus. (31) " Then the Churches had peace throughout all 
Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and being edified, and walking in the 
fear of the Lord, and the consolation of the Holy Spirit, they were mul- 
tiplied. 1 ' Thus times of peace and quiet were seen to be propitious to 
a cause which had sprung up amid strife and opposition, showing that 
it was not the obstinacy of human passion, but the legitimate working 
of unchangeable truth, which had brought it into being. According 
to the philosophy which Gamaliel had urged in the Sanhedrim,* 
its claim to a divine origin was now vindicated. 

32-35. We have just seen Saul sent "far hence to the Gentiles;" but 
as yet we have had no account of the admission of uncircumcised Gen- 
tiles into the Church; it is time that this account should be before 
us, and Luke proceeds to give it. He approaches the subject by re- 
lating the circumstances which led Peter, who was the chosen instru- 
ment for opening the gates of the kingdom to the Gentiles, into the 
city of Joppa, where the messengers of Cornelius found him. We 
parted company with this apostle on his return with John from the 
visit to Samaria. We meet him again, engaged in active labor through 
the rural districts of his native country. (32) " Now it came to pass 
that Peter, passing through all quarters, came down also to the saints who 
dwelt at Lydda. (33) And he found there a certain man named vEneas, 
who had kept his bed eight years, and was paralyzed. (34) And Peter 
said to him, JEneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise, and make your 
bed. And he arose immediately. (35) And all who dwelt at Lydda and 
Saroyi saw him and, turned to the Lord." The long continuance of 
painful disease makes the afflicted individual well known to a large 
circle of neighbors, and fixes their attention upon the disease itself as 
one difficult to cure. Hence, the effect upon this community of the 
cure of iEneas, like that of the lame man at the Beautiful gate of the 
temple, was decisive and almost universal. It was a demonstration 
of divine power in Jesus the Christ, whom Peter had declared the 
agent of the cure, which the honest people of Lydda and Saron could 
not gainsay, and therefore they had no honest alternative but to yield 
to his claims. 

36-43. From the midst of these happy and peaceful triumphs of the 
truth, Peter was suddenly called away to J oppa, The circumstances 
which led to this event are thus related by Luke : (36) u Now, in 
Joppa, there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, is 
Dorcas.^ This woman was full of good works and alms which she did. 
(37) And it came to pass, in those^days, that she took sick and died. 
They washed her, and laid her in an upper room. (38) And Lydda being 
near to Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was in that place, sent 
two men to him, entreating him not to delay to come to them. (39) Then 
Peter arose and went with them. Wheyi he arrived, they led him up into 
the upper room, and all the widows stood by him, weeping, and showing 
the tunics and mantles which Dorcas made while she was with them. 
(40) But Peter put them all out, and kneeled down and prayed : and, turn- 
ing to the body, he said, Tabitha, arise. She opened her eyes ; and, seeing 
Peter, she sat up. (41) Giving her his hand, he caused her to stand up ; 
* Acts v : 34-39. t Which, again translated into English, is a gazel. 



ACTS IX : 42, 43. 



129 



and, having called the saints and widows, he presented her alive. (42) It 
became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord." 

Nothing could be more graphic and simple than this narration, or 
more touching than the incident itself. Amid the array of solemn 
and stately events which are moving before us, it is dropped in, like a 
flower in the forest. It opens a vista through the larger events of 
history, and lets in light upon the social sorrows of the early saints, 
awakening a closer sympathy between our hearts and theirs. We 
here see enacted among them scenes with which we are familiar, 
when one who has been noted for good works sickens and dies: the 
same anxiety felt by all ; the same desire for the presence of him who 
had been their religious counselor; the same company of weeping sis- 
ters, and brethren standing by in mournful silence. As each good 
deed of the departed is recounted by some sobbing voice, and the gar- 
ments " which she made while she was with us," to clothe the poor, 
are held up to view, how the eyes gush ! how the heart swells ! These 
are sacred hours. The labors of a whole life of piety are pouring their 
rich influence, unresisted, into softened hearts. How blessed are the 
dead who die in the Lord ! They rest from their labors, but their 
works do follow them, still working while they are at rest. When. 
Peter, came into that company of weeping disciples, he seems to stand 
once more beside his master, as once he and all who were with him 
wept with Mary and Martha over the tomb of Lazarus. But he re- 
members that his compassionate master is now in heaven. With deep 
solemnity, he motions the mourners all aside. He is left alone with 
the dead, and the company without have hushed their sobs into silent 
suspense. He kneels down and prays. How the heart turns to God 
beside the bed of death! How fervent our prayers are then! The 
prayer of faith is heard. The eyes of the dead are opened, and the 
faith and hope which glowed in them ere they were closed are in them 
now. She sees the loved apostle, and rises to a sitting posture. He 
takes her by the hand, raises her to her feet, and calls in her friends. 
Who can describe the scene, when brothers and sisters in the flesh 
and in the Lord, wild with conflicting emotions, rushed in to greet the 
loved one recovered from the dead ! And if that is indescribable, what 
shall we say or think of that scene when all the sainted dead shall 
rise in glory, and greet each other on the shores of life? May Christ 
our Savior help us to that day ! We have no Peter now, to wake up 
our sleeping sisters, and give them back to us ; but we do not regret 
it, for we remember thftt Dorcas had to die again, and we would not 
wish to weep again, as we have wept, over the dying bed, and the fresh 
sods of the silent grave. We would rather let them sleep on in the 
arms of Jesus, till both we and they shall rise to die no more. 

43. Peter was engaged, at this time, in general evangelizing among 
the Jews, adapting his stay at a given point, and his change of place, 
to the exigencies of the cause. The restoration of Dorcas, doubtless, 
opened a wide field for usefulness in the surrounding community, (43) 
u and he tarried many days in Joppa, with one Simon, a tanne.rT Here 
the historian leaves him for awhile, and introduces us to the circum- 
stances which removed him from this to another field of labor. 

X: 1-2. The scene changes from Joppa to Caesarea, about thirty 



130 



ACTS X : 1-2. 



miles nortnward along the Mediterranean shore; and we are in- 
troduced to another case for conversion, a Gentile and a soldier. 
(1) " There was a certain man in Casarea named Cornelius, a centurion 
of the cohort called Italian, (2) a devout man, and one who feared God with 
all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God con- 
tinually." We desire to examine, with great care, the process of this 
man's conversion, and begin by noticing the present religious elements 
of his character. He is a "devout man" — a man of deep religious 
feelings. He is not a devout pagan, but he "fears God," the true God. 
He must, then, be somewhat acquainted with the Jewish religion. 
He is not identified with the Jews, being un circumcised. He is not 
a timid or unfaithful worshiper of God, but has taught all his family 
the same worship. He gives much alms to the people, and is a pray- 
ing man. 

At first glance, it might appear strange that such a man should 
need conversion. There are many men, at the present day, in whose 
favor not so much can be said, who flatter themselves that their pros- 
pects for eternity are good. They are honest in their business, honor- 
able in their intercourse with men, good husbands and fathers, gener- 
ous to their neighbors, and benevolent to the poor; what have they to 
fear at the hands of a just and merciful God? They forget that their 
obligations to God are infinitely higher than those to men, even to the 
dearest friends on earth ; and that, therefore, it is the most inexcusable 
of all sins to persistently refuse him the worship which is his due. 
This offense takes the hue of the blackest ingratitude, when we remem- 
ber the blood which has been shed to touch our hearts, and to open 
up to us the way of pardon and eternal life. Of this crime every man 
is guilty who does not worship the living God, and submit to the ordi- 
nances of Jesus Christ. But Cornelius was a praying man, a devout 
worshiper of God, besides possessing every other virtue claimed by 
self-righteous sinners ; yet it was necessary for even him to hear " words 
by which he might be saved."* Until a man can claim for himself 
something more than is here said of him, he may not flatter himself 
with the hope of salvation. 

Under the former dispensation, the piety and fidelity of Cornelius 
would have given him an honorable place among the holy men of 
God; but this alone could not suffice him now. Jesus the Christ had 
stepped in between God and man, and opened, through the rent vail 
of his flesh, the only access to God. All heaven had confessed his 
authority, and the holy disciples on earth had come to the Father by 
him. But Cornelius was still calling upon God, without the name of 
Christ, and seeking to approach him by the old, not by the new and 
living way. He was in the same condition with any pious but unbe- 
lieving Jew of that or of our own age. It was necessary to his sal- 
vation that he should believe in Jesus and obey him. This would 
secure to him the pardon of his sins, which he had not and could not 
secure by worshiping according to the law. 

3-6. This defect in his religious character was not a fault; it was 
only a misfortune. He was doing the best he knew how; and, if we 
may infer what he prayed for, from what he obtained in answer to his 
* Acts xi : 14. 



ACTS X : 3-6. 



131 



prayers, lie was praying for additional knowledge, and perhaps for an 
interest in the salvation offered through Christ. Such a prayer, offered 
by such a man, is always acceptable to God. On a certain day he had 
fasted till in the afternoon, and at three o'clock was praying within 
his house,* when (3) " He saw distinctly in a vision, about the ninth hour 
of the day, an angel of God coming in to him and saying to him, Corne- 
lius. (4) He looked intently upon him. and was full of fear, and said, 
What is it, Lord f He said to him, Thy prayers and thine alms have 
come up for a memorial before God. (5) And now, send men to Joppa, 
and call for one Simon who is surnamed Peter. (6) He is lodging with 
a certain Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea-shore. He will tell 
you what you ought to do." 

Here is an unconverted man praying, and his prayer is answered. 
But the circumstances of the man, the nature of the prayer, and the 
answer given, are all essentially different from those of unconverted 
men who are taught to pray by the Protestant sects of the present 
day. The man was not instructed in a knowledge of the Kedeemer, 
and the way of salvation, and of his own interest in the same, but 
neglecting his duty, as is the case with, the modern sinner. Neither 
was he praying for pardon, while postponing obedience to the gospel, 
as in these cases; but his prayer was for a knowledge of his duty, and 
he had no one by to instruct him. The answer to his prayer was 
given, not, as is now so often pretended, by sending forth the Spirit 
into his heart to speak his sins forgiven, but by sending an angel to 
tell him where he can find a man who will guide him in the way of 
salvation. 

In the case of the eunuch, an angel appeared to the preacher and 
sent him to the inquirer. In this case, the angel appears to the in- 
quirer, and tells him to send for the preacher. In both cases, the only 
work of the angel was to bring the two men together, face to face. 
Thus, again, we see an insuperable necessity, in case of a scriptural 
conversion, for the presence and co-operation of a human agent, show- 
ing that the divine influences, whatever, and however numerous they 
may be, reach the heart through the word of truth. The prayer of 
Cornelius was answered, like that of Saul, by referring him to inspired 
authorities within the Church. This shows how vain, at the present 
day, must be every prayer for direct answers from heaven, in reference 
to the pardon of sins. If a verbal answer to such prayers could be ob- 
tained, we are bound to conclude, from these precedents, that it would 
still be, "Go to Damascus and it shall be told you," or "Send men 
to Joppa for Simon whose surname is Peter, and he will tell you what 
you ought to do." Peter and Ananias are before us now, with the 
same instruction which they gave then, and it is useless for us to offer 
for what we have in hand, prayers which Saul and Cornelius offered 
for what had not yet been granted. The directions given by the two 
teachers, in these cases, and by other inspired men, is all that God 
granted to sinners then, and it is certainly all that we have a right to 
ask for now. 

The necessity for the spoken word in order to the conversion of 
men is not only exhibited in these missions of angels, but it also ex- 

* Verse 30. 



132 



ACTS X : 7-9. 



plains the occurrence, in the two cases of Cornelius and the eunuch, 
of an agency not discernible in other cases. If no heavenly messenger 
had been sent to Philip, he could not have known that there was an 
Ethiopian on the road to Gaza, reading his Bible, and ready to hear 
the gospel. And if no angel had appeared to Cornelius, he could not 
have known that he had any interest in the blood of Jesus, or any 
right to send for Peter. No human being could have informed him, 
because all others, including Peter, were as ignorant of it as himself. 
An interposition from heaven is necessary; but when it occurs, it pro- 
vides only for just such demands of the case as could not be supplied 
without it. The multitude on Pentecost needed no such angelic aid, 
for the preacher was before them, and each party was conscious of 
the right to speak, on the one hand, and the right to obey, on the 
other. So with us. When we wish any information, or the enjoy- 
ment of any religious privilege, we have the apostles before us, face 
to face. Their words are in our hands, and may be in our minds and 
hearts. We have no need for heavenly apparitions or illuminations; 
and if we expect them, we will be disappointed, or deluded. If a man 
in ignorance prays for a knowledge of salvation, this incident in the 
case of Cornelius, instead of encouraging him to pray on, actually an- 
swers his prayer, by telling him to send for some man who understands 
the gospel, and will guide him as Peter did Cornelius. 

Before proceeding further in this case of conversion, we wish the 
reader to observe that enough has occurred already to secure Corne- 
lius's recognition as a genuine convert, by the prevailing Protestant 
parties of this day. Let any man come before the Church with such 
an experience as his, saying, "I have been for many years a devout 
man, worshiping God as well as I knew how, giving alms to the poor, 
praying continually, and teaching all my family the fear of God. Yes- 
terday afternoon, at three o'clock, I was praying, according to my cus- 
tom, when suddenly a holy angel stood before me, and said, Thy 
prayers and thine alms have come up for a memorial before God." 
Who would doubt that he was "powerfully converted," or dare to in- 
sinuate that there was any thing else necessary in the case ? He would 
receive the right-hand of fellowship at once. Yet, so different was the 
apostolic procedure, that the man was now only prepared to hear 
words by which he might be saved. How long will religious men 
allow their inventions and traditions to nullify the word of God ? 

7-8. (7) "And when the angel who spoke to Cornelius went away, he 
called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of those who 
attended him, (8) and having fully related all these things to them, he sent 
them to Joppa." The two servants are included in the household, who 
with him feared God, and the soldier selected had also learned the 
same great lesson. None but men of such character would be suitable 
messengers in a case like this. 

9-16. The scene of the narrative now changes again, from Csesarea 
back to Joppa, and to the house of the tanner, where we left the Apos- 
tle Peter. Leaving the messengers of Cornelius on the way, Luke 
anticipates their arrival, and relates how Peter was prepared for the 
favorable reception of their message. (9) " Now, on the next day, while 
they were on their journey, and were drawing near to the city, Peter went 



ACTS X: 10-16. 



133 



up upon the house to pray, about the sixth hour. (10) He was very hungry 
and desired to eat ; but while they were preparing, he fell into a trance, 

(11) and saw heaven opened, and saw a certain vessel descending, like a 
great white sheet tied by the four corners, and let down to the earth ; 

(12) in which were all kinds of four-footed animals and wild beasts and 
reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (13) And there came a voice 
to him, Rise, Peter ; kill and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; 
for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean. (15) And the voice 
spoke to him again the second time, What God has cleansed, do not you 
call common. (16) This was done three times, and the vessel was taken 
up again into heaven." 

In order to fully appreciate the necessity for this vision, we must 
remember the prejudice of the Jews against uncircumcised Gentiles. 
Previous to the Babylonish captivity, they had too great an inclina- 
tion to intimacy with their idolatrous neighbors; but that terrible 
affliction cured them of idolatry, and when they returned to their 
own land, they put away, at the instigation of Nehemiah, all the 
idolatrous wives among them.* This was the beginning of a reaction 
toward the opposite extreme, and such a state of feeling was finally 
induced, that, in the traditions of the elders, it was regarded as a sin 
even to go into the house of one who was uncircumcised. The dis- 
ciples of J esus had been educated from their childhood to an intense 
degree of this prejudice, and there were facts in the history of Jesus 
calculated to foster rather than to eradicate it. They had heard him 
say, "I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." - ]* 
They had seen him work no miracle for a Gentile except under the 
protest, " It is not proper to take the children's food and cast it to 
dogs."J And when he had sent them out on their first mission, he 
had commanded them, " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and 
enter not into a city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost 
sheep of the house of Israel." |j It is true, that in their final com- 
mission he had commanded them to disciple and immerse all nations; 
but they very naturally interpreted this in the light of past experi- 
ence, and concluded that all nations were to be gradually absorbed 
into the Jewish commonwealth by circumcision, and afterward brought 
into the Church. They had not hesitated, therefore, to immerse prose- 
lytes, and even to give them office in the Church, § though they still 
regarded it as a sin to enter the house of a Gentile who was uncir- 
cumcised.^ 

This fact in the mental state of the apostles shows that they were 
not guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth at once, but their knowl- 
edge was extended according to the demands of the occasion. It was 
a prejudice, however, belonging to them as Jews, which had pre- 
vented them, thus far, from perceiving the particular truth here 
involved ; and this involves the conclusion that prejudices previously 
imbibed were capable of impeding the inspiring influence, so that 
special measures were required for their eradication. 

The time had now arrived when this prejudice must be uprooted 
from the heart of Peter. If it were a part of the work of the indwelling 

* Noh. xiii : 23-31. + Matt, xv : 24. t Matt, xv : 26. 

U Matt, x : 6 6. g See Com. vi : 5. \ Acta xi : 3. 



134 



ACTS X : 17-22. 



Spirit to act immediately upon the heart, then there need be noth- 
ing more done with Peter than for the Spirit thus to act. But there 
is not the slightest intimation of any such action. On the contrary, 
influences of an entirely different nature are brought to bear upon 
him, and to them the effect is plainly attributed. A series of signifi- 
cant objects are presented to his eye, certain words are addressed 
to his ear, and a combination of facts are brought to bear upon 
his understanding. Falling into a trance, while hungrily await- 
ing his noonday meal, he sees, descending from heaven, and then 
spread out before him, a great sheet full of animals, both clean and 
unclean. This vision conveys no meaning, until he hears the words, 
"Arise, Peter; kill and eat." He now understands it as indicating 
that he shall eat unclean animals. But this is so shocking to his 
sense of propriety that he exclaims, in perplexity, even to the invisi- 
ble God who had spoken to him, "Not so, Lord; for I have never 
eaten any thing common or unclean." But he is commanded, "What 
I have cleansed, do not you call common." The vessel is brought 
near to him, and the same words repeated three times. Then the 
vision closes, and he recovers from the trance. 

17-20. Restored now to his natural state of mind, Peter remains 
upon the house-top, reflecting upon the vision, and wondering if there 
was not some meaning in it besides that in reference to unclean ani- 
mals. The question was soon solved. (17) " Now when Peter was 
doubting in himself what this vision which he had seen could mean, 
behold, the men who were sent from Cornelius, having inquired out the 
house of Simon, were standing at the gate : (18) and calling, they in- 
quired if Simon surnamed Peter was lodging there. (19) But Peter 
was still thinking of the vision, and the Spirit said to him, Behold, three 
men are seeking you. (20) Arise, therefore, and go down and go with 
them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them.'" In the skillful arrange- 
ments of divine wisdom, all the separate influences which are to 
remove Peter's prejudices are adjusting themselves for combined and 
harmonious action. Those men have been on their journey two days, 
but God had measured their steps to the house of Simon, and timed 
the appearance of the vision to the motion of their feet, so that when 
they reach the gate he is still on the house-top, absorbed in reflection ; 
but ere they are admitted to the house, the Spirit has sent him down 
to meet them, and to go with them. 

21-22. He knows nothing, as yet, of the nature of their mission, 
neither does he yet understand any better than before the meaning 
of the vision. (21) " Then Peter went down to the men, and said, Be- 
hold, I am he whom you arc seeking. What is the cause for which you 
are come ? (22) And they said, Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, and 
one who fears God., and of good report among all the nation of the Jeivs, 
was warned from God by a holy angel to send for you into his house, 
and to hear ivords from you." Upon hearing these words, the whole 
truth at once flashed upon the mind of Peter, and the agencies which 
for two days had been preparing to uproot his prejudice, sprang 
upon it with their combined force. No less than an angel from God 
has sent these men to call me into the house of a Gentile, to preach 
the gospel to him. My vision of clean and unclean beasts is 



ACTS X: 23-32. 



135 



explained. God has cleansed the Gentiles, and I am no longer to call 
them unclean. The Spirit has commanded me to go with these men, 
without doubting. The authority of God, of an angel, of the Holy 
Spirit, all impel me. I can resist no longer. His prejudice is gone, 
and doubtless he feels a new thrill of joy as his heart tremulously 
enlarges to take the whole world within the embrace of his philan- 
thropy. 

23. As the Spirit had directed, he does not hesitate as to the line 
of duty, but at once announces to the messengers that the journey 
sKall begin to-morrow. (23) " Then, calling them in, he lodged them; 
and on the next day Peter went out with them, and certain brethren from 
Joppa went vnth him." It was a wise precaution that he took other 
brethren with him, so that the whole of this new movement might be 
properly attested by competent and disinterested witnesses. 

24. During the four days which had elapsed, Cornelius had made 
no secret of the vision he had witnessed, but had communicated it to 
such friends as were likely to take the same interest in it with him- 
self. Having presumed, with all confidence, that Peter would come, 
and knowing the time that the journey would require, all was in 
readiness for his arrival. (24) " On the next day they entered into 
Ccesarea. Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his 
kinsmen and intimate friends." These friends and relatives, it must 
be remembered, and not the mere family of Cornelius, were the chief 
part of the audience about to be addressed by Peter. 

25-27. (25) u Now as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell 
down at his feet and worshiped. (26) But Peter raised him up, and said, 
Stand up. I myself also am a man. (27) And conversing with him, 
he came in and found many who had come together." It is not in keep- 
ing with the character of Cornelius to suppose that he rendered to 
Peter such worship as is due to God. But prostration was the com- 
mon attitude of approach to a superior, as it yet is in eastern coun- 
tries, and Cornelius was but complying with this custom. To Peter, 
however, it appeared as if he intended something more, and hence the 
rebuke. 

28, 29. Upon entering the house of this Gentile, side by side with 
him, and into the presence of others who were likewise uncircumcised, 
Peter deemed it proper to inform them of his reason for thus depart- 
ing from a well-known Jewish custom. (28) u And he said to them, 
You know thai it is unlawful for a Jew to attach himself to, or to come 
into the house of one of another nation. Yet God has showed me that I 
should not call any man common or unclean. (29) Therefore, I came 
without objecting when I was sent for. I ask, then, for what purpose you 
sent for met" This speech shows clearly that Peter had interpreted 
the vision of unclean beasts as referring to men as well as to animal 
food. 

30-33. (30) " Then Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until 
this hour, and at the ninth hour I was praying in my house, and behold, a 
man stood before me in bright apparel, (31) and said, Cornelius, your 
prayer is heard, and your alms are had in remembrance before God. 
(32) Send, therefore, to Joppa, and call for Simon who is sur named Peter. 



136 



ACTS X: 33-39. 



He is lodging in the 1wv.se of Simon, a tanner, by the sea-shore. When he 
conies he villi speak to you. (33) Immediately, therefore, I sent for you, 
and you have done well that you have come. Now, then, we arc all pres- 
ent here before God to hear all things which are by God commanded you." 
In this last remark Cornelius speaks for his frieuds who were assem- 
bled, as well as for himself. As was becoming the occasion, he had 
gathered in, to hear the expected messenger, only those who were will- 
ing to hear him as a messenger of God. In the statement that they 
were all present before God to hear what he had commanded, there 
was an implied pledge to obey what they might hear, and there is ho 
doubt, from the sequel, that such was their purpose. 

34, 35. The scene before Peter enlarges his conceptions of the pur- 
pose of God; for he now sees that his mission is designed not for the 
benefit of Cornelius alone, but for a large number of his Gentile 
friends; and if for all these, then, there is to be no further national 
limitation to the gospel. He gives utterance to this conception. (34) 
- Then Peter opened his mouth and said, In truth I perceive that God is 
not a respecter of persons ; (35) but, in every nation, he that fears him 
and works righteousness is acceptable to 7i???i." This expansive thought 
was sufficient to burst asunder all the exclusive bonds of the Mosaic 
institution, and should be sufficient now to explode the equally inju- 
rious theory of an arbitrary predestination of certain men and angels 
to their eternal destiny.* It is a positive declaration that God respects 
not persons but character. To fear him, and to work righteousness, and 
not any other distinction between persons, is the ground of accepta- 
bility with him. 

36-38. Cornelius has now related to Peter such an experience, as, 
w r e have seen above, would secure him recognition as a genuine con- 
vert to Christ among Protestant sects; but Peter was so far from re- 
garding it in this light, that he proceeds to preach to them as he 
would to other sinners. We will consider his remarks by the sections 
into which it natural^ divides itself. (36) " You know the word 
which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus 
Christ, (he is Lord of all,) (37) the word which was published through- 
out all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the immersion which John 
preached, (38) concerning Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him 
with the Holy Spirit and with power ; who went about doing good and 
healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him." 
From this it appears that Cornelius and his friends were familiar with 
the personal history of Jesus, and even with the message of peace 
which God had caused him to preach to the children of Israel. The 
information which they lacked, therefore, was only that which referred 
to their own interest in that message. 

39. Not content with assuming that these facts were familiar to 
them, he gives them a surer foundation for their convictions, by present- 
ing the testimony upon which he relies to prove the facts. (39) u And 
we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews 
and in Jerusalem, whom they slew, hanging him upon a tree.' In view 
of the fact that Cornelius had been '"warned from God by a holy 

* See Westminster Conf., ch. iii: Bee. 5. 



ACTS X: 40-43. 



137 



angel," to send for Peter and hear what he had to eay, no confirma- 
tion of this his testimony was needed. They were prepared to receive 
every tiling he might say to them as a message from God. 

40, 41. The crowning fact of the gospel comes next in the statement. 
(40) " Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly, (41) 
not to all the people, bat to wityiesses chosen by God beforehand, even to us, 
tcho did eat and drink with him after he arose from, the dead." Here 
Peter states, by way of commending to his hearers the evidence of the 
resurrection, a fact which has been so differently construed by infidels, 
as to be made a ground of objection to it; that is, that the witnesses 
were chosen for the occasion. Whether Peter or the infidels are right 
in judgment, depends entirely upon the grounds of the choice. If 
they were chosen because of a dishonest desire to prove the fact, or 
because of the ease with which they might be deceived into the be- 
lief of a fact which had no real existence, then it may be rightly re- 
garded as a suspicious circumstance. But the reverse is true in both 
particulars. Such was the situation of the witnesses, that there was 
great danger both to property and person, in giving their testimony, 
and therefore every motive to dishonesty prompted them to keep silent 
rather than to testify. They were also the least likely of all the men 
of Israel to be deceived, because of their long familiarity with the per- 
son of him who was to be identified. Peter, then, was right; for the 
fact that such witnesses were chosen beforehand is proof that no de- 
ception was intended; while the fact that they "did eat and drink 
with him after he arose from the dead," rendered it impossible for 
them to be deceived. 

42, 43. Having now followed the career of Jesus from the beginning 
to his resurrection and exhibition of himself alive to the witnesses, 
Peter proceeds in regular order to the next historical fact, the giving 
of the apostolic commission. (42) u And he commanded us to preach 
to the people, and to testify that it is he who is ordained by God the judge 
of the living and the dead. (43) To him all the prophets testify that every 
one who believes in him shall, through his name, receive remission of 
sins." 

The declaration that every one who believes in him shall receive 
remission of sins has been construed as proof that remission of sins 
is dependent on faith only. But the fact that Peter is here stating 
what Jesus commanded the apostles to preach should prevent such a 
construction of his words; for, in the commission to which he refers, 
immersion is connected with faith, as a condition of pardon. His 
words must be construed consistently with this fact. There is no diffi- 
culty in doing this, for it is a common apostolic usage to employ faith 
as an equivalent for all the- conditions of pardon. To deny that im- 
mersion is for remission of sins, because, in a condensed statement like 
this, it is not specifically mentioned, is not less subversive of the truth 
than to deny that repentance is a condition because it is not men- 
tioned. It is not sufficient to reply to this, that repentance was always 
implied in genuine faith; for it certainly was not more uniformly at- 
tendant upon faith than was immersion. It would be as difficult to find, 
in apostolic times, a penitent believer who was not immersed, without 
unnecessary delay, as a genuine believer who was not penitent. All 



138 



ACTS X: 44-46. 



believers who repented were invariably immersed. Of course, we ex- 
clude from this remark all cases which occurred previous to the date 
of the commission. 

If any one, dissatisfied with this explanation, is disposed to insist 
that Peter's declaration, that every one who believes in Jesus shall 
receive remission of sins, must include those — if any there be — who 
believe, but are not immersed, we have but to show the absurdity of 
the assumption by referring to a parallel case in which there can be 
no dispute. The Apostle John says: " Whosoever shall confess that 
Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him, and he in God."* He 
who would conclude, from this remark, that the only condition of 
communion with God is to confess that Jesus is his Son, subverts the 
truth no more than he who makes the assumption in question; for the 
universality of the declaration is the same in both, and there is no 
limitation expressed in either. 

There is no one fact more distinctly stated in Acts than that believ- 
ers should repent and be immersed for the remission of sins :f hence, 
there can scarcely be a grosser perversion of the word of God than to 
construe other statements of the Scripture so as to deny the truth of 
this. A condition of pardon once stated can never be set aside by any 
less than express divine authority. 

It should be observed, further, that the statement in question is not 
absolutely that " every one who believes in him shall receive remission 
of sins;" but that he shall receive it "through his name." The ex- 
pression, "through his name," was not thrown in here at random; for 
the inspired apostles never spoke at random. It has a well-defined 
meaning, and was intended to qualify the sentence of which it forms 
a part. What we receive through his name certainly can not reach us 
until we attain some connection with his name. But we are immersed 
into his name with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit; hence it 
is at the time of this immersion, that the believer receives remission 
of sins through his name. 

44—46. We are next informed of a fact which is new to this narra- 
tive, and was very surprising both to Peter and his companions. (44) 
" While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all 
those who were hearing the word, (45) and the believers of the circumcision 
who came with Peter were astonished, because on the Gentiles was poured 
out the gift of the Holy Spirit. (46) For they heard them speaking in 
tongues, and magnifying God" The matter of astonishment to the 
Jewish brethren was not merely that these men received the Spirit; 
for if Peter had gone on to finish his discourse, promising them the 
gift of the Holy Spirit as he did on Pentecost,^ and had then immersed 
them, these brethren would have understood, as a matter of course, 
that they received the Holy Spirit. And if, after this, he had laid 
hands on them, as he did on the Samaritans, even miraculous mani- 
festations of the Spirit could have created no surprise. The circum- / 
stances which caused the astonishment were: First, That the Holy 
Spirit was "poured out" upon them directly from God, as it had never 
been before on any but the apostles; Second, That this unusual gift 
was bestowed upon Gentiles. 



* 1 John iv : 15. 



f Sco Acts ii : 38. 



\ Acts ii : 38. 



ACTS X: 44-46. 



139 



In attempting to classify the manifestations of the Holy Spirit known 
in this history, we are compelled to distinguish the case before us from 
the gift of the Spirit enjoyed by all disciples in common, by the fact 
that these parties "spoke in tongues;" and from the gift of the Spirit 
bestowed on the Samaritans, by the fact that it was bestowed without 
prayer or imposition of hands. We have no event with which to 
classify it except that which occurred on Pentecost. That these two 
events constitute a class by themselves is further evident from the fact 
that these parties alone are said to be " immersed in the Holy Spirit."* 
These two are the only instances of immersion in the Holy Spirit on 
record, and they are distinguished from other gifts of tongues, in that 
they alone were bestowed without human agency. 

There is only one passage of Scripture in even apparent conflict 
with this conclusion, which, from the interpretation frequently given 
to it, demands some notice in this connection. It is the statement of 
Paul: "By one Spirit we were all immersed into one body, whether 
Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and have all been made to drink 
of one Spirit."f If the apostle intends by this to assert that all the dis- 
ciples " were immersed in the Holy Spirit," then this immersion was 
not peculiar to the apostles and the house of Cornelius. The question 
turns upon the reference of the word immerse ; whether it is to immer- 
sion in water or immersion in the Spirit. It is settled by the fact that 
the immersion here spoken of is that which introduces "into the one 
body." We know by the commission that immersion in water brought 
its proper subjects "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit." But when, and by whatever means, men were 
brought into the relation expressed in these words, it is indisputable 
that they were brought into the one body. It was immersion in water, 
therefore, by which "all were immersed into one body." Moreover, 
the immersion in the Holy Spirit did not have this effect; for the 
apostles were in the one body before they were immersed in the Spirit, 
and Cornelius was immersed in the Spirit before he was immersed into 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This makes it certain 
that the passage in question is not in conflict with our conclusion. As 
to Paul's assertion that the immersion into one body was u by one 
Spirit," the words "by one Spirit" are a declaration that the immer- 
sion had taken place under the direction of the one Spirit who was the 
author of all the gifts mentioned in the connection in which the pas- 
sage occurs. J 

The immersion of Cornelius and his friends in the Holy Spirit pre- 
vious to their immersion in water has been urged as proof that remis- 
sion of sins takes place before immersion. But it can furnish no 
such proof unless it be first proved that the Holy Spirit could not be 
imparted to a man who was yet unpardoned. If Cornelius had been 
a man of gross wickedness, there would seem to be some incongruity 
in such an impartation ; but, in view of his real character, and the fact 
that God had previously sent an angel to express his approbation of 
his conduct, there appears no incongruity in this circumstance. 

This incident in the conversion of Cornelius can not, in any way, be 
held as a precedent for us; from the fact that it was a miraculous 

* Compare i : 5 with xi : 16. f 1 Cur - xii = 13 « X St >e 1 Cor. xii : 3-13. 



140 



ACTS X: 47, 48. 



gift, and therefore peculiar to the age of miracles. It may as well be 
regarded as necessary to see the Lord as Saul did, in order to a gen- 
uine conversion, as to be immersed in the Spirit as Cornelius was. It 
is, therefore, a very gross deception to urge upon the people that they 
should receive the Spirit, after the precedent of Cornelius, before they 
are immersed. 

47, 48. The true explanation of this unusual circumstance is given 
in the following words, together with Peter's own explanation of it in 
the eleventh chapter: *" Then Peter answered, (47) Can any man for- 
bid water, that these should not be immersed, who have received the Holy 
Spirit as ivell as ice f (48) And he commanded them to be immersed in 
the name of the Lord. Then they requested him to remain some days." 
The use that Peter made of it expresses the design of its occurrence. 
That use was to remove all possible objection to the immersion of 
the parties. In any other case which had occurred, or which occurred 
after this, no such objection could have existed. The very fact, there- 
fore, which led to this unusual occurrence, was an exceptional circum- 
stance, which furnishes the strongest proof that this case is not a 
precedent for imitation in this particular. 

Before he was interrupted, Peter had already proceeded so far with 
his discourse as to reach the subject of faith, and of remission of sins, 
and immersion must have been the next word upon his lips, if he nad 
proceeded after the model of his sermon on Pentecost. The interrup- 
tion, therefore, did not break the thread of his discourse, but enabled 
him to proceed with greater confidence to the very conclusion which 
he had intended. He first appeals to the brethren, to know if any ob- 
jection yet lingered in their minds, and finding none, he commanded 
them to be immersed in the name of the Lord. 

Let us now recall the fact that Cornelius had been directed to send 
for Peter to hear " words by which he and all his family might be 
saved, "f Peter has come, and delivered his message. He has told 
him of Christ, in whom the man now believes. He has commanded 
him to be immersed, and it has been done. This is the whole story of 
the conversion. When it was accomplished, the painful anxiety which 
he must have experienced during the last four days was removed, and 
his present happiness is indicated by the cordiality with which he in- 
vites Peter to remain with him some days. 

We now have three individual cases of conversion before us, each 
detailed with great minuteness. In some particulars they are precisely 
alike; in others, they are quite different. But they are all three gen- 
uine cases of conversion; and, therefore, the points in which they differ 
are not essential to conversion, but are accidental circumstances aris- 
ing from the peculiarities of the individual case. Now, in order that 
we may learn what is essential to conversion, and what among all the 
cases on record, are accidental circumstances, we must be guided by 
the following rule. Whatever is common to all cases is necessary to 
a scriptural conversion; but whatever we find in one case which cer- 
tainly did not occur in all others, is a peculiarity of the individual 
cases in which it occurs. The points in which all the recorded cases 
agree are the points in which all subsequent conversions must agree 



* Acts xi : 15. 



f Acts xi : 14, 



ACTS X : 47, 48. 



141 



with them. The points in which they differ are points in which sub- 
sequent conversions may differ from them. In order to determine that 
certain features are not essential, it is only necessary to find cases in 
which they do not occur. In order to determine that any one is essen- 
tial, we must find it in all cases, or find it prescribed in some general 
law expressly designed to govern all cases. 

While the three cases already before us are fresh in the memory, 
and before points of difference become multiplied by additional cases, 
so as to confuse the understanding, we propose to institute a compari- 
son between them, in the light of the rule just prescribed. Leaving 
out of view the difference in character, occupation, and social position, 
of the eunuch, Saul, and Cornelius, which show only that the gospel 
is adapted to all men without regard to previous character or position, 
we will only notice those differences which might form the ground of 
erroneous conclusions. First, then, in the cases of the eunuch and 
Cornelius, there was the visible appearance of an angel; and many 
converts of modern times have related, as part of their experience in 
conversion, similar apparitions. But there certainly was not in Saul's 
case the appearance of an angel ; therefore, such an appearance is not 
necessary to conversion. Second, The Lord himself appeared to Saul 
and conversed with him; but he certainly did not to either the eunuch 
or Cornelius. It is not necessary, then, to see the Lord. Third, Saul 
mourned and prayed for three days after he believed, and before he 
was immersed; but Cornelius and the eunuch did not; therefore, pro- 
tracted sorrow and prayer are not necessary to conversion. Fourth, 
Cornelius was immersed in the Spirit, but Saul and the eunuch were 
not; therefore, immersion in the Spirit is not essential, but a circum- 
stance arising from the peculiarity of a single case. 

The points in which these cases agree are chiefly these: they all 
heard the gospel preached, with miraculous evidence to sustain it; 
they all believed what they heard; they were all commanded to be 
immersed; they all were immersed; and after immersion they were all 
happy. If, then, we do not hereafter encounter recorded cases from 
which some of these items are certainly absent, we must conclude that 
at least all of these are necessary to scriptural conversion. When 
other cases are before us, we will institute further and more complete 
comparisons. 

We would be glad to know more of the history of Cornelius, so as 
to determine how far, even in times of peace, the profession of arms 
is compatible with the faithful service of the Prince of Peace. He is 
the only soldier of whose conversion we have an account in the New 
Testament, and of his subsequent career we know nothing. Whether, 
amid the scenes of blood and desolation not many years after most 
wickedly visited upon Judea by the army in which he was an officer, 
he resigned his office, or made shipwreck of the faith, we can not 
know till the great day. Let it be noted, however, that his is an in- 
stance of a soldier becoming a Christian, not of a Christian becoming 
a soldier. It furnishes a precedent for the former, but not for the lat- 
ter. Whether Peter instructed him to resign his position in the army 
or not, is to be determined not by the silence of the historian in refer- 
ence to it, but by first determining whether military service is compat- 



142 



ACTS XI: 1-18. 



ible with the moral teachings of the New Testament. If Jesus and 
the apostles had been, for more than thirty years previous to the pub- 
lication of Acts, teaching that Christians should not take the sword, it 
was not at all necessary for Luke to say that Peter so instructed Cor- 
nelius. 

XI : 1-3. The novel scene which had transpired in Caesarea was 
soon reported abroad over the country. (1) " Now the apostles and breth- 
ren throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles had received the word of 
God. (2) And when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcis- 
ion disputed with him, (3) saying, You went into the house of men uncir- 
cumcised, and did eat ivith them." The prejudice from which Peter had 
been delivered was still preying upon the hearts of his Jewish breth- 
ren, including the other apostles. The same change is now to be 
wrought in them which had already been effected in him. But there 
is no repetition, in their case, of the vision and voices which had 
occurred in his. On the contrary, there is nothing brought to beai 
upon them but what is contained in the words of Peter. 

4-17. (4) " But Peter related the matter to them in order from the begin- 
ning, saying, (5) I was in the city of Joppa, praying, and saw, in a trance, 
a vision; a certain vessel like a great sheet descending, let down from 
heaven by the four corners, and it came to me. (6) Having looked 
intently into it, I perceived and saw four-footed animals, and wild beasts, 
and reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (7) And I heard a voice, 
saying to me, Arise, Peter ; kill and eat. (8) But I said, Not so, Lord ; 
for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth. 
(9) But the voice from heaven again answered me, What God has cleansed, 
do not you make common. (10) This was done three times, and all was 
drawn up into* heaven again. (11) And behold, three men immediately 
came to the house in which I was, sent to me from Caesarea, (12) and 
the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. But these six breth- 
ren also went with me, and we entered into the mans house. (13) Then 
he told us that he had seen an angel in his house, standing and saying 
to him, Send to Joppa, and catl for Simon who is surnamed Peter, (14) 
who will speak words to you by which you and all your house will be 
saved. (15) And while I was beginning to speak, the Holy Spirit fell 
upon them as upon us in the beginning. (16) Then I remembered the 
word of the Lord, that he said, John immersed in water, but you shall be 
immersed in the Holy Spirit. (17) Since, then, God gave to them the 
same gift as to us who already believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who 
was I, that T should be able to withstand God?" The events here 
rehearsed by Peter had removed his own prejudice, and now, through 
the words which he addressed to the brethren, the same vision of 
unclean animals, with the command to kill and eat ; the same com- 
mand of the Spirit to go with the Gentile messengers; the authority 
of the angel who had ordered him to be sent for; and, finally, the same 
immersion of those Gentiles in the Holy Spirit, are all pressing upon 
their minds and hearts, with precisely the same import that they did 
upon his. 

18. The effect of these influences was the same upon them that it 
had been upon Peter. (18) " When they heard these things they held 
their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God to the Gentiles also 



ACTS XI: 19. 



143 



granted repentance in order to lifer So greatly are their hearts en- 
larged, that they now glorify God for the very things on account of 
which they had just been censuring Peter. 

We have, in this incident, an exhibition of the actual method by 
which the minds of Christians were enlightened, and their hearts en- 
larged. We see that Peter was first enlightened by a combination of 
facts, visions, and words, so as to understand the will of God in the 
matter, and that through this enlightened understanding he was made 
to feel the weight of divine authority. Although the Spirit of God 
dwelt in him continually, and imparted ideas to his understanding 
directly, yet, when his heart was, to be relieved from an injurious preju- 
dice, the end was accomplished by means of ideas communicated to 
his understanding. Thus the case stands with Peter, who occupies 
the position of an original recipient of truth. 

With the brethren in Jerusalem, who occupied the exact position 
toward this particular subject which we do to all revealed truth, there 
is this difference, that all the influence, both upon the understanding 
and the emotional nature, exerted in their case, reached them through 
Peter's words. Still, the influence was not inherent in the words, but 
in the facts of which the words were the medium of communication. 
Moreover, the facts had such an influence only because they indicated 
the will of God. It was then, at last, the moral power of God, em- 
bodied in the facts reported by Peter, but brought to bear through the 
words of Peter, which so changed their hearts. They had only to 
believe what Peter reported, in order to feel this power. If they had 
retained their prejudice after this, they would have felt that they were 
resisting God. 

In precisely this way the converting and sanctifying influence of 
the Holy Spirit reaches the hearts of men now. We do not have 
direct communications with heavenly beings, as Peter had, but, like 
the brethren in Jerusalem, we hear from his lips, and the lips and 
pens of other original recipients, the same truth which affected their 
minds and hearts, and we find ours affected by it in the same way. 
When we resist, we are resisting not Peter and Paul, but the Holy 
Spirit, by whom they spoke and wrote. The fact that the Holy Spirit 
dwells in us is no proof that his action upon our moral sentiments is 
direct or immediate; for he dwelt in Peter, and in the apostles who 
arraigned Peter; yet his action upon even their hearts was mediate, 
through ideas communicated. He who asserts for us a species of 
spiritual influence which was not exerted even upon the apostles and 
other inspired men, is, to say the least, a daring speculator. 

19. The scene of the narrative is now about to change to another 
Roman province, and to the city of Antioch. Preparatory to this 
transition, the historian glances back over a period of several years, 
to the dispersion of the Jerusalem Church. He had made that event 
his point of departure in rehearsing the labors of Philip and the 
early history of Saul, and now, with a degree of system in his arrange- 
ment which should not be overlooked, he starts again at the same 
point to sweep over another part of the wide field before him. 
(19) " Now they who were scattered abroad from the persecution which 
arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch } 



144 



ACTS XI: 20-26. 



speaking the word to none but Jews." From this we learn that while 
Philip was preaching in Samaria, and Saul in Damascus and Arabia, 
others of the brethren were spreading the truth into Phenicia, the isl- 
and of Cyprus, and Antioch in Syria. Thus the knowledge of salva- 
tion was sounded out from Jerusalem simultaneously into all the 
surrounding provinces. 

20-21. Among the brethren engaged in these labors, Luke chooses 
to follow in the narrative only those who founded the Church in Anti- 
och. (20) 11 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, hav- 
ing come into Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. 
(21) The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed 
and turned to the Lord. 11 These men were not immediately from Cy- 
prus and Cyrene, but were a part of those dispersed from Jerusalem. 
The expression, " Some of them," referring to the preceding sentence, 
thus designates them. The Hellenists were doubtless numerous in 
Antioch, from the fact of its being the chief commercial city of West- 
ern Asia; and these brethren, being also Hellenists, were best suited 
for reaching their ear's. 

22-24. Jerusalem was still the chief center of religious influence, 
being the chief residence of the apostles. They kept a watchful eye 
upon the movements of brethren in all directions, supplying help 
and counsel according to the demand of circumstances. They were 
anxious to hear of every new success, and the brethren were equally 
glad to report it. (22) u Then tidings of these things came to the ears of 
the Church in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas to go as far as 
Antioch. (23) When he arrived and saw the favor of God, he rejoiced, 
and exhorted them all with purpose of heart io cling to the Lord. (24) 
For he was a good man, and full of the LTaly Spirit and faith ; and a 
great multitude were added to the Lord." It is not often that Luke 
bestows a direct encomium upon the characters of whom he writes, as 
he does here upon Barnabas. But it was proper, in this case, that the 
selection of Barnabas for this mission, in preference to other brethren, 
should be accounted for by stating the noble qualities Avhich led to the 
choice. He was certainly a most proper man to send to a congregation 
of young disciples, to exhort them to cling to the Lord. 

25. While Barnabas was engaged in these faithful labors in Antioch, 
he seems to have longed for the co-operation of a kindred spirit. He 
had not forgotten the converted persecutor, whom he had kindly taken 
by the hand when all the apostles were suspicious of him, and intro- 
duced to the confidence of the brethren. An act of kindness often 
makes as deep an impression on the heart of the benefactor as'on that 
of the recipient. The heart of Barnabas had followed Saul when the 
brethren sent him away to Tarsus, and now that he needs a fellow- 
laborer, his heart directs him where to seek. (25) "Then Barnabas 
departed to Tarsus to seek Saul ; (26) and having found him he brought 
him to Antioch." The attachment being mutual, he found no diffi- 
culty in securing the object of his mission. 

26. The united efforts of two such men as Barnabas and Saul, in a 
community where the gospel was already favorably heard, could not 
fail of good results. (26) u And it came to pass, that during a whole year 
they were associated together in the Church, and taught a great multitude ; 



ACTS XI: 20-26. 



145 



and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." There has 
been much dispute as to whether this new name was given by Barna- 
bas and Saul under divine authority, or by the Gentiles of Antioch, 
or by the disciples themselves. It would serve no practical purpose to 
decide between the latter two suppositions, for, with whichever party 
it originated, it was subsequently accepted by the disciples in general. 

As to the supposition that the name was given by direct revelation 
through Barnabas and Saul, a thorough discussion of its merits would 
require more verbal criticism than is suited to the design of this work, 
and, at the same time, be less decisive in reference to the authority 
of the name in question, than the course of investigation which we 
prefer to institute. We retain, therefore, the common version of the 
passage, which is sustained by the great mass of critics of all ages 
and all parties, while we seek a more certain basis on which to rest 
the divine authority of the new name than verbal criticism can estab- 
lish. 

If the New Testament furnishes any names for the people of God, 
its authority in reference to their use is not less imperative than in 
reference to any other use of language. We can have no more right, 
in this case, to substitute other names for them, or to add others to 
them, than to do the same in reference to the names of the apostles, of 
the Holy Spirit, or of Christ. 

Eeligious names are significant. They not only distinguish the 
bodies to which they belong, as do modern names of individuals, but 
they distinguish them by a condensed description of their peculiarities. 
All the peculiarities of a religious denomination are expressed by the 
denominational name in its current import. Hence, to call a Baptist 
by the name Methodist would be worse than to call Smith by the 
name of Jones; for, besides miscalling him, it would be misrepresent- 
ing his religious principles. It is true, that, in thus miscalling the 
Baptist, you have not changed him into a Methodist, for he remains 
the same by whatever name you call him. Still, you have miscalled 
him and done him injustice. Truth and justice, therefore, require us 
to use religious names with reference to their significance. 

If denominational names are significant, those originally applied to 
the body of Christ are not less so. They distinguish the people of 
God by designating some of their peculiarities. These peculiarities 
were found either in the relations which they sustained, or in the char- 
acter which they exhibited to the world. The first relation which, 
attracted the attention of the world, as they followed Jesus from place 
to place, was that of teacher and pupils. This suggested the name 
disciples, or learners, by which they were first designated, and which 
is the most common designation in the gospel narratives. From the 
fact that there were disciples of John, with whom they might be 
confounded, they were, at first, styled "disciples of Jesus." But when 
John had decreased, and Jesus had increased, the limiting words were 
dispensed with, and the term disciple was appropriated, so that, stand- 
ing alone, it always meant a disciple of Jesus. In the four gospels 
the limiting words are commonly employed; but in Acts, where Luke 
is giving some of their history as a great people spreading through 
the earth, after once calling them " disciples of the Lord," at the time 



146 



ACTS XI: 20-26. 



Saul starts after them to Damascus, he drops the limiting words, and 
thence throughout the whole narrative he calls them simply the "dis- 
ciples." 

When the disciples assumed a new relation to their teacher, it nec- 
essarily brought them into a new relation to one another. From the 
nature of the moral lessons which they were learning, and which 
they were required to put into immediate practice, this relation became 
very intimate and very affectionate. It gave rise to their designation 
as " the brethren." They were eo styled first by Jesus, saying to them: 
u Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are breth- 
ren."* This term, however, as a distinctive appellation of the whole 
body, is used only once in the gospel narratives, where John says of 
the report that he would not die : " This saying went abroad among 
the brethren." f In Acts it frequently occurs in this sense; but still 
more frequently in the Epistles. The latter being addressed to the 
brethren, and treating of their mutual obligations, this term most natu- 
rally takes precedence in them, and the term disciple, which is used in 
speaking of a brother rather than to him, is as naturally omitted. 
This accounts for the fact that the latter term is not once found in 
the Epistles. 

This increasing currency of the term brethren in the later apostolic 
age is intimately associated with the introduction of another name 
which came into use in the same period. J esus frequently called the 
disciples his own brethren, and taught them, in praying, to say "Our 
Father, who art in heaven;" but the title, "children of God," which 
grew out of the relation thus indicated, was not applied to them dur- 
ing this early period. It is not so applied in any of the gospels but 
John's, and in this only in two instances, where it is evident that he 
is using the phraseology of the time in which he writes rather than of 
the period of which he writes. J This appellation, as a current and co- 
temporaneous title, is found only in the Epistles, being brought into use 
after the disciples had obtained more exalted conceptions of the blessed 
privileges and high honors which God had conferred upon them. It 
extorted an admiring comment from John, in his old age : " Behold, 
what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should 
be called the sons of God /"JJ 

By this time the disciples exhibited to the world a well-defined char- 
acter. It was such as identified them with those who, in the Old 
Testament, were called saints ; and this suggested the use of this term 
as one of their appellations. The persecutions which they were endur- 
ing still further identified them with the holy " prophets who were 
before them." This name occurs first on the lips of Ananias when 
he objected to approaching Saul of Tarsus. He says to the Lord, 
u I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to 
thy saints in Jerusalem." In the Epistles this name is used more fre- 
quently than any other. 

All of the names we have now considered are well adapted to their 
specific purposes; but all of them presuppose some knowledge of the 
people whom they are intended to distinguish. An entire stranger 
would not at first know who was meant by the disciples, or the brethren; 
* Matt, xxiii : 8. f John ^ : 23 - t John i : 12 ; xi : 52. || 1 Job a iii : 1. 



ACTS IX: 20-26. 



147 



but would ask, Disciples of whom? brethren of whom? Nor would 
he know who were the children of God, or the saints, until you had 
informed him to what certain characters these terms apply. There 
was need, therefore, of a name less ambiguous to those who had the 
least information on the subject — one better adapted to the great world. 
This, like all the others, originated from circumstances which de- 
manded it for immediate use. When a Church was established in 
Antioch, it became an object of inquiry to strangers, brought thither 
by the pursuits of commerce, from all parts of the world. They were 
strangers to the cause of Christ in reference to all but the wonderful 
career of its founder. The whole world had heard something of Christ, 
as the remarkable personage who was put to death under Pontius Pi- 
late, though many had heard nothing of the early history of his Church. 
From this fact, when strangers came to Antioch, and heard the new 
party who were attracting so much attention there, called Christians, 
they at once recognized them as followers of that Christ of whom 
they had already heard. This explains the fact stated in the text, 
that " the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The fact 
that Luke here adopts it, and that both Paul and Peter afterward rec- 
ognized it, gives it all the validity of inspired usage, and, therefore, all 
the weight of divine authority. That it is a New Testament name is 
undisputed, and this renders its divine authority indisputable. 

This name, whether given by divine or by human authority, was 
not designed as an exclusive appellation, seeing that the others were 
continued in use after its introduction. It merely took its proper 
place among the other names, to answer its own special purpose. 

To sum up the facts now adduced, the New Testament usage in 
reference to names is this: When the followers of Jesus were con- 
templated with reference to their relation to him as their great teacher, 
they were called disciples. When the mind of the speaker was fixed 
more particularly on their relation to one another, they were styled 
brethren. When their relation to God was in the foreground, they were 
called children of God. When they were designated with special refer- 
ence to character, they were called saints. But when they were spoken 
of with the most general reference to their great leader, they were called 
Christians. A practical observance of the exact force of each of these 
names would soon conform our speech to the primitive model, and 
would check a tendency to exalt any one name above another, by 
giving to each its proper place. 

The names now enumerated are all that are furnished by the New 
Testament. We have assumed above that it would be subversive of 
divine authority for disciples to adopt any other names. The truth of 
this assumption is demonstrated by the rebuke which Paul adminis- 
ters to the Corinthians for this very sin. He says to them: "It has 
been declared to me, my brethren, by them who are of the household 
of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that 
each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, 
and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? 
Or were you immersed into the name of Paul?"* Now, if it was sin- 
ful for these brethren to assume the names of men, how can it be 
* 1 Cor. i : 11-13. 



148 



ACTS IX: 20-26. 



innocent in us to do the very same thing? This question demands the 
most solemn and trembling consideration of this generation. 

It is no extenuation of this fault to urge that the divisions which 
now exist are of a different character from those in Corinth; for the 
difference is entirely in their favor. They had not gone so far as to 
divide the Church into separate organizations, but had merely formed 
parties within it, like the parties of the present day, which sometimes 
exist within a single denomination. The sin of to-day is, therefore, 
much greater than theirs. 

It is equally vain to excuse our sin, by urging that the party names 
now worn are necessary, in order to distinguish the parties from one 
another. If the existence of the parties themselves were authorized 
by the Scriptures, this excuse would be valid; for we could not cen- 
sure ourselves for the unavoidable results of that which is itself right. 
But the existence of party divisions constitutes the chief crime in the 
case, and leads to the sin of party names, as stealing leads to lying. 
The thief must inevitably lie, or acknowledge his theft; so the parti- 
san must either cling to his party name, or give up his party. The 
name, in the mean time, is a necessary evil, but, being self-imposed, it 
is none the less evil from being necessary. 

Not to multiply words upon this point, it is sufficiently evident, from 
the above considerations, that parties and party names among Chris- 
tians should be obliterated. If we say that it is impossible to obliterate 
them, we are simply saying that it is impossible to bring Christians 
hack to the New Testament model — for, in the New Testament pe- 
riod, there were no such divisions, and therefore a restoration of that 
state of the Church would be. the destruction of parties and party 
names. If this is impossible, it can only be from one cause, and that 
is, that men professing to take the word of God as their guide are so 
hypocritical in this profession, that they will, at all hazard, persevere 
in despising its authority in reference to a prominent item of duty. 
IIow shameful it is, that men will uphold parties and party names, 
which they know perfectly that a strict conformity to the New Test- 
ament would utterly destroy! There is only one means of escape 
from this crying sin. Those who love God must break loose at once, 
as individuals, from the bondage of party, and take a position where 
they may be upholders of no party, and wearers of no party name. 
All who act thus will find themselves planted together on the plain 
letter of the Scriptures, as their only rule of faith and practice. 

In addition to the observations already submitted on this topic, we 
remark that every significant name which a man wears imposes some 
obligation upon him, and appeals to him incessantly, though silently, 
to discharge this obligation faithfully. Does a man in a foreign coun- 
try declare himself an American^ he realizes that there is a peculiar 
demeanor required by the fact, and feels constantly called upon to act 
worthy of the name he wears. Even a man's patronymic, which 
means no more than that he belongs to a certain family, is forever 
warning him not to disgrace the name of his father. So it must be 
with all religious names. 

Is a man called a disciple of Jesus f He remembers that it is the 
part of a disciple to learn what his teacher imparts, and to imitate his 



ACTS XI: 20-26. 



149 



example. Whenever lie is reminded that this is his name, he feels 
the necessity of studying the teachings of Jesus, and walking in his 
footsteps. Whenever he finds himself neglecting these duties, his very- 
name rebukes him. This thought was not overlooked by the great 
Teacher himself. He says to those Jews who believed on him, " If 
you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you shall 
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."* Again he says, 
" It is enough for the disciple to be as his teacher ;" and "whosoever 
does not bear his cross and come after me, can not be my disciple." f 
Thus he gives emphasis to that exhortation which the name itself is 
constantly sounding in the ear of conscience. 

But the disciple is also one of the brethren — a brother to the Lord 
Jesus, who is the oldest brother of a large family. This name is full 
of affection and sympathy. I can not meet a man and call him 
brother, without some thought of the fraternal sympathy which should 
exist between us. If, when my heart is poisoned by unkind feelings 
toward a disciple, he meets me and calls me brother, I feel reproached 
by the word, and am choked in the attempt to pronounce it in return. 
It will never let me forget the law of love. Its influence is recognized 
by Peter, who says, "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying 
the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see 
that you love one another with a pure heart fervently."! 

There is another obligation involved in this name, arising from the 
fact that the brothers in one family stand on an equal footing in refer- 
ence to authority, no one having supremacy over the others, but all 
subject to the father. Jesus makes use of this fact as the ground of 
a serious injunction. "Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, 
and all you are brethren ; and call no man on earth your Father, for 
One who is in heaven is your Father; neither be called Leaders, for 
one is your Leader, the Christ." || The fact that we are brethren 
is thus made to bear directly against that thirsting for titles of dis- 
tinction, and for rank and authority in the Church of Christ, which 
is invariably the offspring of an unholy ambition. The modern Lead- 
ers of sects — the ghostly Fathers of mystic Babylon, and the swelling 
titles by which Doctors of Divinity, and the Reverend and Right Rev- 
erend Bishops and Archbishops of the present age are distinguished, 
exhibit the most flagrant contempt for this solemn commandment of 
the Lord. A man who understands the meaning of the fact that he 
is one among many brethren, is guarded, by the humility of this title, 
from participation in a sin like this. 

If such are the obligations implied in the names disciple and breth- 
ren, what shall we say of that more exalted title, children of God? It 
originates from a supposed likeness between them and their Father. 
We are commanded to love our enemies, to bless them who curse us, 
to do good to them who hate us, and to pray for them who persecute 
us, that we may be children of our Father who is in heaven. § Thus 
the very highest moral obligations imposed in the word of Cod must 
ever press upon the soul of him who wears this title, inciting him to 
become a partaker of the divine nature. 



* John viii : 31, 32. f Matt, xi : 24; Luke xiv : 27. J 1 Peter i : 22. 
|| Matt, xxiii: 8, 10. g Matt, v : 44, 45. 



150 



ACTS XI: 20-26. 



When, in addition to these appellations, you call a man a saint, you 
thrust him as a companion into the midst of all the holy men of old, 
and make him struggle to be like them. So palpable is the force of 
this name, that the mass of professed Christians have long since ceased 
to wear it. When men apostatized from what its meaning indicates, 
it hung so heavily upon the conscience, that it became like a coal of 
fire on their heads, and they found relief in throwing it off from them- 
selves and appropriating it to a few of the worthy dead. If we would 
ever come back from the long apostasy of ages, we must learn to wear 
the name saint, and walk worthy of the company with which it iden- 
tifies us. The term saint means a holy one, and Peter exhorts, "As 
he who called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner ,of behavior; 
because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy."* 

The name Christian embodies within itself, in a more generic form, 
all the obligations specifically expressed by the other names. Being 
derived from the name of him who is "head over all things for the 
Church," whose name is above every name, it is a title of peculiar 
honor and glory. It calls upon the man who wears it to act a part 
in consonance with the historic memories which cluster around it, and 
encourages him with the reflection that he wears a high dignity even 
when despised and spit upon by the powers of earth. So thought 
Peter, when this name was most despised. He says, "If any suffer as 
a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this 
account." " If you are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are 
you; for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."f 

When the servant of Christ remembers that all these names belong 
to him ; that, because he is supposed to be learning of Christ, he is 
called a disciple; because he is one of the happy and loving family of 
equals, they call him brother; because the Father of that family, 
whose character he strives to imitate, is God himself, he is called a 
child of God; that, because he is presumed to be holy, he is called a 
saint; and that, for all these reasons, he wears the name of him who 
by his mediation and intercession enables him to be all that he is, 
how powerful the incentive to every virtue, constantly yet silently 
pressing upon his conscience, and how stern the rebuke to every vice! 

When we turn from this deep and holy philosophy of scriptural 
names, to consider the import of mere partisan badges, how heartless 
they all appear! The constant and on'ly influence of party names is 
to intensify mere partisan feelings. The man who wears the name 
Methodist feels called upon by the fact to simply act like a Methodist; 
and when that name is appealed to among those who honor it, it is only 
to exhort one another to diligence in that which is peculiarly expected 
of a mere Methodist. So with all other party names. There is noth- 
ing in any of them to excite the longings of a sin-sick soul, and hence 
they are never appealed to when sinners are exhorted to repent. On 
the contrary, the most zealous partisans are often heard to assure sin- 
ners, "Our object is not to make Presbyterians of you, or Methodists, 
or Baptists ; but we want you to become Christians." How strange it 
is that men will pertinaciously cling to names which they are thus 
ashamed of in the presence of penitent sinners, when there are others 

* 1 Peter i: 15, 16. t 1 Peter iv : 14-1<>- 



ACTS XI: 27-30; XII: 1, 2. 



151 



at hand given by Grod himself, full of honor to the wearer, and of at- 
traction to all who seek salvation ! 

27-30. We have dwelt long upon the new name given in Antioch ; 
we must now consider other interesting events which occurred there 
about the close of the year in which Barnabas and Saul labored 
there together. (27) " In those days prophets came down from Jerusa- 
lem to Antioch, (28) and one of them, named Agabus, arose and signified 
through the Spirit that there would be a great famine throughout the 
whole world, which also occurred in the days of Claudius. (29) Then 
the disciples, every one according as he was prospered, determined to 
send relief to the brethren who dwelt in Judea ; (30) which also they did, 
sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul." 

This is the first account we have of the gift of prophesy among the 
disciples, but Agabus and his companions appear to have been already 
known as prophets, doubtless from previous exercises of this gift. 
The brethren, therefore, did not hesitate to give full credit to the pre- 
diction, and knowing that such a famine must cause peculiar distress 
among the extremely poor in Judea, they were prompt to supply their 
wants even before the period of distress arrived. Their benevolence 
is not less remarkable than that of the Church in Jerusalem at the 
beginning. The poor for whom that Church provided were in their 
midst, and suffering from present want; but the disciples in Antioch 
anticipate a state of distress yet in the future, on the part of brethren 
to whom they are personally unknown, and provide for it in advance. 
No more striking evidence could be given, at once, of their benevo- 
lence, and their confidence in the predictions of their own prophets. 

This benevolent supply was sent to the Elders, by whom, we are to 
understand, it was distributed to the final recipients. This is the first 
time that elders, as a distinct class, are mentioned in connection with 
the congregations of disciples. They are mentioned, however, as a 
class of officials then well known, and, consequently, we must infer 
that they had been appointed in the Churches at a still earlier 
period. 

XII : 1, 2. The historian does not follow Barnabas and Saul in their 
tour through the districts in Judea, but, leaving them for awhile, in- 
troduces a very interesting episode concerning events that were then 
transpiring in Jerusalem. (1) " Now, about that time, Herod the king 
stretched forth his hand to afflict certain persons of the Church, (2) and 
killed James the brother of John with the sword." The persecutions 
which we have hitherto noticed were conducted by religious partisans 
in Jerusalem, without any active assistance on the part of the civil 
authorities. We are now introduced to one in which the reigning 
prince is the leader, while* the old enemies of the truth are working 
behind the curtain, if it all. 

This Herod was a grandson of that Herod by whom the infants of 
Bethlehem were slaughtered, and a nephew of " Herod the Tetrarch," 
by whom John the Immerser was beheaded. He grew up in Rome, 
where he wasted what fortune he had inherited in princely extrava- 
gance; but while doing so he acquired an intimacy with Caius Caasar, 
afterward the famous Caligula of history. When the latter ascended 
the throne, at the death of Tiberius, he elevated his friend Agrippa, 



152 



ACTS XII: 3, 4. 



as this Herod was most usually called, to a kingdom, which was sub- 
sequently enlarged by Claudius until it embraced all the territory 
ruled by his grandfather Herod the Great, He was now in the zenith 
of his power, and living in the utmost magnificence.* Why he under- 
took this persecution it is difficult to tell, unless he was instigated 
to it by the old enemies of the Church. This appears most probable 
from Luke's statement below, that he seized Peter because he saw 
that the death of James pleased the Jews.f 

A number of brethren suffered in this persecution, though James 
the brother of John is the only one who is said to have suffered death. 
He is designated as the "brother of John" to distinguish him from 
the other James, who is the author of the epistle bearing this name. 
He was the first of the apostles to suffer death, and his brother John 
was the last. In the death of both were fulfilled the words of Jesus, 
uttered on a memorable occasion, when they asked him for a seat, 
one at his right hand and the other at his left. He asked them if 
they were able to undergo the immersion which he would undergo. 
They said, "We are able." He replied, "You shall, indeed, drink of 
my cup, and be immersed in the immersion in which I am immersed ; 
but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but 
to them for whom it is prepared by my Father." As the sword of 
the executioner was made bare, and the neck of James, laid upon 
the block, he could but remember these words. He understood, too, 
far better than when he first made the request, what it is to sit at 
the right hand of Jesus. 

Why James was selected for this murderous example, in preference 
to any other of the apostles, we are not informed; but we have already 
seen that the brunt of persecution uniformly fell upon those most 
prominent in the scenes which were the immediate occasion of it. 
This consideration gives some ground for the conclusion that, though 
Peter and John had hitherto acted the most prominent part in Jeru- 
salem, at this time James stood in the foreground in the conflict with 
unbelieving Jews. 

3, 4. When a man engages in a wicked enterprise, his conscience 
makes him timid while left to himself; but the applause of the mul- 
titude enables him to drown the voice of conscience, and rush on 
madly to the end. Agrippa may have hesitated when he found his 
hands stained with the blood of an apostle; but when the people 
applauded he hesitated no longer. (3) 11 And seeing that it urns pleas- 
ing to the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. But it was in the days 
of unleavened bread. (4) And having apprehended him, he put him in 
prison, delivering him to four quarternions of soldiers to guard him, 
intending, after the Passover, to bring him out to the people.' 1 A public 
execution during the feast of unleavened bread would have been 
exceedingly incongruous with the religious solemnities of the occa- 
sion : hence this delay. 

The four quarternions of soldiers who guarded Peter consisted of 
sixteen men, each quarternion consisting of four. It was enough to 
keep four men on guard during each of the four watches of the 

* For a detailed and very interesting history of this prince, see Josephus's Ant., Books 18 
and 1«J. f Acts xii : 3. 



ACTS XII: 5-7. 



153 



night. They, together with the strength of the prison-doors, were 
deemed sufficient for the utmost security. 

5. We have noticed that when Peter and John were dismissed from 
the Sanhedrim, with a threat of violence if they dared any more to 
speak or teach in the name of Jesus, they came to their own com- 
pany, and all united in prayer to God for courage.* Now that James 
has been murdered, and Peter is in prison awaiting the same fate, we 
find the brethren once more unitedly appealing to God. (5) " Peter, 
therefore, was kept in prison, but fervent prayer was made by the Church 
to God for him." When we reflect that the circumstances affecting 
the disciples were calculated in the highest degree to exasperate them 
against the murderers of their brethren, and stimulate them to active 
measures for the defense of their own lives, it is exceedingly to their 
credit that they were engaged in fervent prayer. If they had been 
taught the modern doctrine that Christians may rightly resist, with 
violence, the assaults of tyrannical rulers, and, whatever the weak- 
ness on their own part, may confidently appeal to the God of battles 
in vindication of their rights, their feelings and their conduct, under 
these circumstances, must have been far different from what they 
were. If ever there was an occasion on which the boasted first law 
of nature, the right of self-defense, would justify violent resistance to 
oppression, it existed here. But, instead of the passion and turmoil 
of armed preparation, we hear from the midnight assemblies of the 
disciples the voice of fervent prayer. Where prayer is, acceptable 
prayer, there is no passion, no thirst for revenge, or purpose of vio- 
lence. These men were disciples of the Prince of Peace. 

6. Time wore away in painful suspense until the Passover was gone 
by. (6) u And when Herod was about to bring him forth, in that night 
Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and the 
guards before the door were guarding the prison." He was securely 
kept, according to the most ingenious method of the Roman army. 
Besides the prison-doors, and the guards without, his arms were pin- 
ioned by two chains, each to the arm of a soldier on the right and 
left, so that he could not move without disturbing one or both. If 
Herod was actuated, in adopting these precautions, by a desire to pre- 
vent a rescue, he ought to have known that Peter's brethren never 
fought with carnal weapons, even to save the life of a brother. Or if 
he feared a miraculous escape of his prisoner, and intended that the 
guards should kill him upon the first movement of that kind, he ought 
to have remembered that all the twelve had once walked out of a 
prison in that city without hinderance either from the iron doors or the 
armed soldiers. But wicked men are prone to forget the warnings of 
the past, and continue to repeat, in endless succession, the blunders of 
their predecessors. 

7-11. Though Peter undoubtedly expected to die the next day, he 
seems to have slept as soundly as the soldiers to whom he was chained. 
All was dark and still within the prison until a late hour of the night, 
when the scene suddenly changed. (7) u And behold, an angel of the 
Lord stood by, and a light shone in the prison; and striking Peter on the 
side, he raised him up, saying, Rise up quickly. His chains fell from 

* Acts iv : 24. 

12 



154 



ACTS XII: 8-16. 



his hands. (8) And the angel said to him, Gird yourself, and bind on 
your sandals. He did so. And he said to him, Cast your mantle about 
you and follow me. (9) And he followed him, going out, and did not 
know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing 
a vision. (10) But having passed through the first and second guard, 
they came to the iron gate which leads into the city, which opened to them 
of its own accord ; and going out, they went forward one street, and im- 
mediately the angel departed from him. (11) Then Peter, coming to him- 
self, said, Now I know in reality that the Lord has sent his angel, and 
delivered me from the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the 
Jewish people" It is not at all strange that Peter thought, at first, 
that he was dreaming; for the deliverance was entirely unexpected, and 
was effected in the most wonderful manner, and amid the bewilder- 
ment usual upon being suddenly aroused from deep sleep. When he 
found himself alone in the street, and had collected his senses, he knew 
that it was a reality, and felt like one waking from a singular dream. 

12. When the angel departed, he stood in the street for awhile, re- 
flecting upon the incident, and considering what he should do. In the 
house of Mary the sister of Barnabas,* a number of disciples were at 
that very hour engaged in prayer in his behalf. He knew nothing of 
this, but, guided either by the proximity of the house, or the well- 
known character of its inmates, he turned in that direction. (12) 
"When he understood the matter, he went to the house of Mary the mother 
of John, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together 
praying." 

13-16. Although the condition of Peter was the burden of the pray- 
ers of these disciples, they were by no means expecting his deliverance, 
and were most likely praying that he might be enabled to endure with 
fortitude a death which they regarded as- inevitable. (13) "And when 
he knocked at the door of the gate, a servant girl named JRhoda came to 
hear who it was. (14) And recognizing the voice of Peter, she opened not 
the gate for gladness, but ran in and told that Peter was standing before the 
gate. (15) But they said to her, You are mad. But she positively af- 
firmed that it was really so. Then they said, It is his angel. (16) But 
Peter continued knocking, and when they had opened the door and saw 
him, they were astonished." 

When we remember that these disciples were so familiar with mira- 
cles, it is rather surprising that the deliverance of Peter should have 
caused so much astonishment. It shows that they were still disposed, 
like ourselves, to estimate the probabilities of even what God may do, 
by the difficulties of the execution. This is really judging of God by 
the standard of human ability. While we are compelled to approach 
the unknown through the known, we will, perhaps, never rise above 
this weakness. Still, it should not, even in the most difficult cases, 
check the fervency of our prayers. They undervalued the power or 
the willingness of God to grant their desires, in the day of miracles, 
as we undervalue his power to work without miracles; yet their pray- 
ers were none the less fervent or persistent. 

When Rhoda insisted that it was Peter at the gate, and the disciples 
said, It is his angel, they undoubtedly had allusion to the popular 

* Compare verse 12 with Col. iv : 10. 



ACTS XII: 17-20. 



155 



superstition of their day, that a man's guardian angel sometimes as- 
sumed his form. Before this, the twelve had twice imagined that they 
saw a disembodied spirit; once when they saw Jesus walking on the 
water, and once when he miraculously entered a closed room where 
they were sitting.* These facts show how strong a hold the popular 
superstitions had upon their minds. But while the conception that 
angels sometimes assumed the forms of those whom they guarded, 
and that disembodied spirits were sometimes visible, was superstitious, 
we must not forget that beneath this superstition there was a solemn 
reality. J esus says, " Take heed that you despise not one of these little 
ones; for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold 
the face of my Father who is in heaven, "f Paul asks, "Are they not 
all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall in- 
herit salvation ?"f And David, under the old economy, says, in his 
own poetic style, " The angel of the Lord encampeth round about 
them who fear him."|| In view of these statements, we can not doubt 
that the ministration of angels in behalf of the saints is still a reality. 

17. Apprehensive of a pursuit, Peter did not remain long with the 
brethren in the house of Mary. (17) " But, beckoning to them with his 
hand to be silent, he related to them how the Lord had led him out of the 
prison, and said, Tell these things to James and the brethren. And going 
out, he went into another place." Whether this other place was a 
place of concealment in the city, or an entirely new field of labor, is not 
known. 

The prominence given to the name of the surviving James, in this 
speech of Peter, shows that he already occupied a prominent position 
among the brethren. We will, hereafter, see that he continued to 
occupy this position. 

18, 19. The escape of Peter had been altogether unobserved by the 
soldiers who guarded him. The two who were chained to him in the 
prison slept on till day, and those guarding the outside changed their 
watches at the regular hours without suspecting any thing wrong within. 
(18) u Now when it ivas dag, there was no small stir among the soldiers, 
what was become of Peter. (19) And when Herod had sought for him 
and found him not, he examined the guards and commanded that they 
should be put to death. And he went down from Judea to Caisarea, and 
abode there." The military law of the Romans required that guards 
who allowed the escape of a prisoner, and rendered no satisfactory 
account of it, should be put to death. But it is impossible to believe 
that on this occasion Herod was governed by an honest sense of 
military duty. He must have known that the escape of Peter was 
miraculous, and the execution of the guards was an act of insane 
fury. A conscience stained by the blood of an apostle and of six- 
teen faithful soldiers could not find rest in the place where the deeds 
were done ; and doubtless this had much to do with the removal of 
his residence to Caisarea. 

20-23. The historian pursues the history of this murderous prince 
a little further. (20) u Now Herod was enraged against the Tyrians 
and Sidonians. But they came to him with one accord, and having made 
Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace, because their 

* Matt, xiv : 2G ; Luke xxiv : 37. f Matt, xviii : 10. J Heb. i : 14. || Ps. xxxiv ; 7. 



156 



ACTS XII: 21-25; XIII: 1. 



country was nourished by that of the king. (21) And upon a set day 
Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an ora- 
tion to them. (22) And the people cried out, The voice of a God, and 
not of a man. (23) And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, 
because he gave not God the glory, and being eaten by worms, he expired." 
Josephus says of the "royal apparel" in which he was arrayed, that 
it was woven wholly of silver threads, the glittering of which, in the 
morning sun, suggested the idolatrous exclamation of the multitude. 
He also relates that Herod was seized with pains in the bowels, so vio- 
lent that he had to be carried into the palace, and lingered five days 
in excruciating torments from the worms also mentioned by Luke. 
This historian mentions some circumstances of a superstitious char- 
acter in connection with this terrible event, but his account agrees 
substantially with that of Luke. Thus was the righteous judgment 
of God, which is chiefly reserved for the future state, displayed even 
in this world, for the terror of wicked men and the encouragement 
of the righteous. 

24. It was impossible that this providential and sudden death of 
Herod, occurring so soon after the murders which he had committed 
in Jerusalem, should not seriously affect the public mind. We are 
not surprised, therefore, that Luke adds: (24) " But the word of the 
Lord grew and multiplied." Once more the efforts of men to crush the 
cause of Christ resulted in the extension of its triumphs. 

25. This narrative concerning the death of James, the imprison- 
ment of Peter, and the miserable death of Herod, is thrown in between 
the arrival of Paul and Barnabas on their mission to the poor saints, 
and their return to Antioch. It is most probable that they were in 
J erusalem at the feast during which Peter lay in prison. (25) u Now 
Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled 
their ministry, and took with them John who was surnamed Mark." 
This is the first appearance in public life of the evangelist Mark, 
whose education in the house of Mary his mother, and whose subse- 
quent familiarity, first with Barnabas and Saul, and afterward with 
Peter, very happily fitted him for the gospel narrative which we have 
from his pen. We will have more to say of him hereafter.* 

XIII. We have already seen that Barnabas and Saul had labored 
one whole year together in the city of Antioch, and we now learn that 
at the close of this period there were other inspired teachers asso- 
ciated with them. (1) "Now there were in the Church in Antioch certain 
prophets and teachers, Barnabas and Simeon called Niger, and Lucius 
the Oyrenian, and Manaen, foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and 
Saul." It will be observed that, in this catalogue of names, that of 
Barnabas stands first, and that of Saul last. As it was customary at 
that period to arrange names in the order of their notability at the 
time contemplated, we may infer that Barnabas still occupied a posi- 
tion of pre-eminence, while Saul was as yet comparatively undistin- 
guished among the inspired teachers. Nothing more is known of 
Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen than is here stated; but this is enough 
to show that the future instruction of the congregation might be 
safely cpnimitted to their hands. 

* See Acts xiii : 13; and xv : 37-39. 



ACTS XIII : 2, 3. 



157 



2, 3. (2) 11 As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy 
Spirit said, Separate for me Barnabas and Saul to the work to which 
I have called them. (3) And when they had fasted and prayed and laid 
hands on them, they sent them avjay." This command of the Holy 
Spirit is not the call of Barnabas and Saul to their peculiar work, but 
refers to a call which had been previously given. It shows that Bar- 
nabas as well as Saul had received a special call to labor among the 
Gentiles. They had, hitherto, most probably, been associated together 
mainly through geniality of spirit. This geniality may also have fur- 
nished the main reason why they were directed by the Holy Spirit to 
continue their labors together. 

The design of the ceremony of fasting, prayer, and imposition of 
hands observed on this occasion, is variously understood. There are 
only two interpretations of it which are worthy of notice. First, it is 
assumed that the design was to confer on Barnabas and Saul the 
power of working miracles. The only proof offered in support of this 
assumption is the fact that neither of them is said to have wrought 
miracles previous to this time, while they both exhibited miraculous 
powers shortly after. But this is to argue from the silence of the 
Scriptures, and is, necessarily, inconclusive. They may have worked 
miracles before this time, notwithstanding this silence. In the case of 
Saul, indeed, there is almost positive proof that he did so. The Lord 
had given him a special commission as an apostle when he first ap- 
peared to him on the way to Damascus,* and Ananias was sent to 
him that he " might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy 
Spirit."-f Immediately after his immersion he began to discharge his 
apostolic office, and had been thus engaged three years previous to 
his first return to Jerusalem, j Another whole year had been spent 
in the same work in Antioch,|| besides the interval of his residence 
in Tarsus. § But an essential mark of the apostolic office was the 
power to work miracles. This Paul himself assumes, in his Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians, among whom his apostleship had been de- 
nied. As conclusive proof of his apostleship, he says : " Truly the 
signs of an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, in signs 
and wonders and mighty deeds." 9 ^ If these signs are the proof of apos- 
tleship, then he must have been able to exhibit them from the time 
that he began to be an apostle; and this was more than four years 
previous to the imposition of hands by the prophets and teachers in 
Antioch. This fact, coupled with the statement of Ananias, that he 
was sent to him that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit, indi- 
cates clearly that his miraculous endowments dated from his immer- 
sion. The first supposition, then, in reference to the design of the 
ceremony we are considering, proves to be not only unfounded, but 
inconsistent with the facts of the case. 

The second, and doubtless the true interpretation, is this: That the 
imposition of hands, accompanied by fasting and prayer, was, in this 
case, as in that of the seven deacons, merely their formal separation 
to the special work to which they had been called. This, indeed, is 
sufficiently evident from the context. What they did was doubtless 



* Acts xxvi : 1G-18. 
Acts xi : 26. 



t Acts ix : 17. 

g Acts ix : 3 ; xi : 25. 



1 Gal. i: 15-18. 
Tf 2 Cor. xii : 12. 



153 



ACTS XIII : 4, 5. 



what they had been told to do by the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit 
simply said to them, u Separate me Barnabas and Saul to the work to 
which I have called them." The fasting, prayer, and imposition of 
hands was, then, merely their separation to this work. It was a cere- 
mony deemed by infinite wisdom suitable to such a purpose ; and, there- 
fore, whenever a congregation has a similar purpose to accomplish, 
they have, in this case, the judgment and will of God, which should be 
their guide. 

The solemn simplicity of this apostolic ceremony stands in striking 
contrast with the pompous mummery which often characterizes ''ordi- 
nation services" in modern Churches. No less striking is the contrast 
between the humility of Saul and the ambitious spirit of many modern 
clergymen who are extremely exacting in reference to the punctilios 
of ecclesiastical rank. Though an apostle by special commission, he 
was "ordained" by his humble fellow-laborers in Antioch. This fact- 
shows that the idea of superior rank and authority had not then be- 
gun the work of ruin which it has since accomplished, in filling the 
minds of preachers with that same lust of office and power which 
characterizes the intrigues of political partisans. 

4, 5. We now follow Barnabas and Saul to their new field of labor. 
Their departure from Antioch is thus announced by Luke : (4) "So 
they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia, and thence 
sailed into Cyprus. (5) And when they were in Salamis, they preached 
the word of God in the synagogues. And they had John as an assistant." 
Seleucia was the seaport nearest to Antioch, distant some fifteen or 
eighteen miles, and near the mouth of the river Orontes, on the bank 
of which Antioch is situated. Embarking upon some trading vessel, 
they sailed to the port of Salamis, which is at the eastern end of the 
island of Cyprus. 

In choosing this island as the first point in the wide world to which 
they directed their steps, they were, doubtless, guided not by the natu- 
ral partiality which Barnabas may have felt for it as his native land,* 
but by that fixed principle in the apostolic labors which taught them 
to cultivate first those fields which promised the most abundant har- 
vest, f The fact that this was the native island of Barnabas gave him 
hope of a more ready access to many old associates. Besides, the gos- 
pel had already been proclaimed here with some success among the 
Jews,J and in the city of Salamis, as we learn from the text just 
quoted, there was more than one Jewish synagogue. 

What duties were performed by John, in his capacity as " an assist- 
ant," can not be specifically determined with certainty. The term as- 
sistant would indicate that he performed, under their direction, a part 
in the same labor in which they were themselves engaged. The fact, 
however, that Saul was not in the habit of immersing his own con- 
verts, but imposed this duty on his assistants. || renders it highly prob- 
able that this was at least one of the duties performed by John. 

6, 7. Luke is entirely silent in reference to the effect of the apostolic 
preaching in Salamis, leaving us to suppose that it was not great. 
After stating that they preached in the synagogues of the Jews, he 



* Acts iv : 3C. 



t See Com. i : 8. J Acts xi : 19, 20. 

I Compare xviii : 8 with 1 Cor. i : 14-17. 



ACTS XIII: 6-12. 



159 



follows them in their further progress through the island. (6) "And 

having passed through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a 
certain magician, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-jesus, (7) 
who was with Sergius Paulus the proconsul, a prudent man, who called 
for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God." Every 
reader of ancient history has observed that statesmen and generals 
were in the habit of consulting oracles and auguries, and that they 
generally kept about them some one supposed to have the power of 
interpreting the signs of approaching good or evil. In this partic- 
ular period, the educated Romans had become skeptical in- reference 
to their heathen oracles, but Jewish pretenders still had access to their 
confidence on the credit of the ancient Jewish prophets. With a 
knowledge of the true God superior to that of even the greatest philos- 
ophers among the Greeks, because derived from the Jewish Scriptures, 
this Bar-jesus very naturally gained the confidence of even the prudent 
Sergius Paulus. When, however, two other Jews appeared in Paphos, 
claiming to bring additional revelations from the God of Israel, the 
same prudence which had prompted the proconsul to reject the 
heathen oracles in favor of the Jewish pretender, now prompted him 
to send for Barnabas and Saul, that he might hear the word of God 
from them. Such a mind as his could not fail to hear with profit. 

8-12. While listening to the gospel, there were some indications that 
he was inclined to believe it. (6) " But the magician Elymas, for so is 
his name translated, withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul 
from the faith. (9) Then Saul, who is also Paul, filled with the Holy 
Spirit, fixed his eyes on him, (10) and said, O full of all subtilty and all 
mischief, son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to 
pervert the right ways of the Lord? (11) And now, behold, the hand of 
the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a 
season. And immediately there fell upon him a mist, and darkness, and 
he went about seeking persons to lead him by the hand. (12) Then the 
proconsul, seeing what was done, believed, being astonished at the Lords 
teaching." 

This is the only miracle wrought by an apostle to the injury of any 
one's person. It is to be accounted for, not by supposed resentment 
on the part of Saul, nor by a desire to make a special example of Bar- 
jesus. But the case was such that some display of power over the 
person of the false prophet was the readiest way to convince the pro- 
consul. When Moses went into Egypt he found it necessary to im- 
pose many personal inflictions upon the priests, in order to destroy 
Pharaoh's confidence in them. The present case was similar to that. 
The conflict in the mind of Sergius Paulus was between the claim of 
Bar-jesus to prophetic powers, and that of the apostles. The best way 
to settle this question was to denounce him in his true character as a 
son of the devil and an enemy of all righteousness, and then prove 
the justice of the denunciation, by exerting miraculous control over 
his person. As he groped about, calling upon one and another of the 
frightened bystanders to lead him by the hand, the falsity and iniquity 
of his pretensions stood confessed, and the divine mission of the apos- 
tles was demonstrated. The proconsul was fully convinced, and aston- 
ished at teaching which was attended by such power. 



160 



ACTS XIII: 8-12. 



This triumph over Bar-jesus, and the consequent conversion of 
Sergius Paulus, forms an epoch in the life of the Apostle Paul. Hith- 
erto he has occupied a subordinate position, and his name has come 
last in the list of himself and his fellow-laborers. But hereafter he 
is to occupy the foreground of almost every scene in which he acts. 
Heretofore, Luke has written "Barnabas and Saul;" hereafter he 
writes, " Paul and Barnabas." He had been, up to this time, known 
by no other name than Saul, being so called not only by Luke, but 
by Jesus and Ananias.* Luke, though writing long after this name 
had gone into disuse, remembering the custom which thus far pre- 
vailed, thus far retains it in his narrative. But, from this time for- 
ward he uses the name Paul exclusively; and that this was the 
universal custom, we infer from the fact that he is so called by all 
others who mention his name; by the Lord Jesus :f by the mob in 
Jerusalem;^ by the centurion under Lysias;|j by his own nephew ;£ 
by Lysias the chiliarch;^[ by Festus,*"* and by Peter, jf 

There are only two suppositions worthy of notice, by which to 
account for this change of name. First, that he had both the He- 
brew name Saul, and the Latin name Paul, before this time, and per- 
haps from his infancy; but the conversion of the proconsul Paulus 
led to the exclusive use of his Latin name thereafter. This suppo- 
sition, however, can not account for the entire absence of the name 
Paul previous to this event. Moreover, while it is true that many 
Jews of that day had both a Hebrew and a Latin or Greek name, 
there is no evidence that such had been the case with Saul. 

The other supposition is, that he received this new name by com- 
mon consent, in commemoration of the conversion of Paulus. This 
conversion was a signal triumph ; it was accomplished by his instru- 
mentality alone, and was the beginning of the pre-eminence which he 
afterward maintained over Barnabas and all subsequent fellow-labor- 
ers. So bold and startling an incident, though it might have been 
regarded as common-place in his subsequent career, attracted atten- 
tion now, because it was the tirst of the kind in his history, and 
because it secured a conversion of which even Barnabas, under the 
circumstances, might have despaired. Surprised by the event, and 
observing the extreme similarity between his name and that of his 
distinguished convert, which differed only'in a single letter, and sounded 
very much alike, his friends very naturally conceived the idea of 
changing his name, as they did. It was in perfect harmony with a 
prevalent custom of the times. Its universal reception soon followed 
as a matter of course. 

It argues no vanity in Paul that he adopted this name; for he 
could scarcely avoid the adoption into his own use of a name by 
which he had become universally known. There is nothing in the 
event, therefore, to encourage men in pompously sounding abroad 
their own achievements, but much to encourage us in honoring a 
brother whose boldness and success are worthy of praise. 

13. Without pausing to give more detailed accounts of the success 
of the gospel in Cyprus, our historian now hurries us away with the 

* Acts ix : 4-17. f Acta xxiii : 11. J Acts xxiii : 14. || Acts xxiii : 18. 

g Acts xxiii : 20. Acls xxiii : 24 - ** Acts xxvi : 2 *- tt 2 Peter : 15 - 



ACTS XIII : 13-16. 



161 



two apostles upon the further prosecution of their tour. (13) " Now 
those about Paul set sail from Paphos, and went to Perga of Pam- 
phylia. But John, departing from, them, returned to Jerusalem" So 
completely has Paul now become the central figure on the pages of 
Luke, that here, instead of following his former phraseology, and 
saying that " Barnabas and Saul " set sail from Paphos, the whole 
company are described as " those about Paul." 

Why they chose the regions north of Pamphylia, in Asia Minor, as 
their next field of labor, we are not informed. Luke is equally 
silent in reference to the reason why John Mark, at this particular 
juncture, departed from them, and returned to Jerusalem. He in- 
forms us, however, at a later period, that Paul censured him for so 
doing.* It is very plausibly suggested by Mr. Howson, that he was 
influenced by fear of the dangers which lay in their way, the mount- 
ains before them being commonly infested with robbers, f He remarks 
that " No population, through the midst of which he ever traveled, 
abounded more in those ' perils of robbers ' of which he himself speaks, 
than the wild and lawless clans of the Pisidian highlanders." 

14, 15. Luke does not linger to recount the dangers through which 
the two travelers may have passed in crossing the mountains, but 
describes their progress in these few words: (14) " But they, having 
departed from Perga, arrived in Antioch of Pisidia, and entering into 
the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, they sat down. (15) And after the 
reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to 
them, and said, Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the 
people, say on. 1 ' This is a very life-like description of the order of 
worship in a Jewish synagogue, and of the readiness with which the 
apostles gained access to the ears of their Jewish kinsmen upon their 
first advent in a new field of labor. The direct invitation given them 
to address the people was doubtless prompted by some vague knowl- 
edge of their characters as public speakers, furnished, perhaps, by 
themselves. 

16. To this invitation Paul responded, by immediately arising and 
addressing the audience. It need not be supposed, in order to account 
for the leadership which he now assumes, that he had laid formal 
claim to superiority over Barnabas; for when two men, of generous 
spirit, are co-operating together under trying circumstances, he who 
possesses the greater courage and promptness will eventually assume 
the foremost position, even without a special agreement to that effect. 
Such was the constant danger and embarrassment of the two mis- 
sionaries, that the question was, who is willing to go forward, rather 
than, who has the right to be heard first. Paul's manner, in arising 
to open the gospel message among these strangers, was bold and 
commanding. It is thus described by Luke: (16) " Then Paul stood 
up, and beckoning with his hand, said, Men of Israel, and ye who fear 
God, give audience." This gesture, described as beckoning with the 
hand, was characteristic of Paul's manner, as we shall have occasion 
to observe frequently hereafter, and was well calculated to arrest the 
attention of an audience. It is the manner of one who knows what 
he is about to say, and feels confident of its importance. 



* Acts xv : 38. 

14 



t Life and Epistles, vol. i, pp. 162-3. 



162 



ACTS XIII: 17-24. 



Besides the Jewish audience present, Paul addressed a number of 
Gentiles,* such as were in the habit of attending Jewish worship in 
almost every Gentile city, and many of whom, like Cornelius, had 
learned to worship the true God. He distinguishes the two classes, 
by addressing the former as "Men of Israel," and the latter, as " Ye 
who fear God." 

17-24. After thus arresting the attention of his hearers, he ap- 
proaches his main theme, by a rapid glance at some of the most 
cherished events in Jewish history. (17) " The God of this people 
Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as 
strangers in the land of Egypt, and wj,th a high hand led them out of 
it; (18) and about the time of forty years nourished them in the wil- 
derness. (19) And having destroyed seven nations in the land of Ca- 
naan, he gave their land to them as an inheritance. (20) After these 
things, he gave them judges about four hundred and fifty years, uyitil the 
prophet Samuel. (21) Then they desired a king, and God gave them 
Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years. 
(22) And having removed him, he raised up to them David for a king, 
to whom he also gave testimony and said, I have found David, the son of 
Jesse, a man according to my own heart, who will do all my will. (23) 
From this mans offspring God has, according to his promise, raised up 
to Israel a Savior, Jesus ; (24) John having preached, before his coming, 
the immersion of repentance to all the people of Israeli 

This glance at the history of Israel, from their departure out of 
Egypt to the reign of David, is a very circuitous method of approach- 
ing the announcement of Jesus as a Savior; but, instead of being a 
defect in the speech, it is one of its chief excellencies. Every speech 
must be judged with reference to the special character of the audi- 
ence addressed. The Jews had a glorious history, of which they 
were justly proud; and any happily expressed allusions to its leading 
facts always awakened in their hearts the most lively emotions. 
These incidents furnished the inspiration of their songs, the themes 
of their orators, the foundation of their national pride, and their 
comfort in persecution. . Whoever, of their own people, appeared 
most deeply touched by these memories, had the readiest access to 
their sympathies, and he who would treat them with indifference or 
contempt, incurred their utmost hatred. Before such an audience, if 
Paul had abruptly introduced the name and the new doctrine of 
Jesus, he might have appeared an apostate from the Jewish faith, 
seeking to supplant it by something entirely new, and would there- 
fore have kindled the resentment of his Jewish hearers at once. But, 
beginning with a happy reference to the history of the chosen tribes, 
and the reign of their most glorious king, and catching up the prom- 
ise made to David, on which their own most cherished hopes were 
based, he leads them, by almost imperceptible steps, to the favorable 
consideration of the fulfillment of that promise in the appearance of 
Jesus as a Savior to Israel. The reference to John, whom all the 
Jews now accredited as a prophet, served the same purpose, while it 
designated more specifically the period in which Jesus had first 
appeared as a Savior. 

* See Terse 42, below. 



ACTS XIII: 25-29. 



163 



The commentators have all noticed the striking similarity between 
this introduction of Paul's speech and that of Stephen before the 
Sanhedrim, of Avhich Paul was probably a hearer. But the attentive 
reader of our comments upon the two speeches will observe that the 
similarity is merely in the facts referred to, not in the purpose for 
which the reference is made; Paul's object being merely to favorably 
introduce his main theme, while Stephen was gathering up a bundle 
of misdeeds in the history of the fathers, with which to lash the 
backs of sons who were so wickedly imitating their resistance to the 
Holy Spirit. 

25. Having alluded to John's preparatory ministry, he next intro- 
duces the direct testimony which he bore to the Messiahship of Jesus. 
(25) " Now, as John was fulfilling his course, he said, Whom think ye 
that I am f I am not he, but behold, there is coming after me one whose 
sandal I am not worthy to loose from his feet." This was a habitual 
saving of John, well known to all who heard his preaching, or had 
heard of it, -and it brought to bear the whole weight of his testimony 
in favor of Jesus. 

26. Those who have been accustomed to watch the sympathy be- 
tween a speaker and his audience can readily perceive, in the change 
of Paul's manner just here, evidence that he discovered some favora- 
ble emotions at work in his audience. He interrupts the thread of 
his argument, by warmly remarking: (21) " Brethren, children of the 
stock of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you is the 
word of this salvation sent." But his impetuosity was not so great as 
to make him forget, altogether, the deep-seated prejudices to be over- 
come in his audience, or to waive the convincing and persuasive 
proofs he had yet to present. He proceeds, therefore, with renewed 
deliberation, to a fuller statement of the argument. 

27-29. After claiming that the Messiahship of Jesus was so well 
authenticated, it was necessary to give some explanation of the sin- 
gular fact, that the Jews, who knew him well, had put him to death 
as an impostor. This he does in a way that not only removes all 
objection, but furnishes additional evidence in his favor. (27) " For 
they who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, not knowing him and the 
voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath-day \ fulfilled them in 
condemning him. (28) And though they found not the least cause of 
death in him, they requested Pilate that he should be put to death. (29) 
And when they had completed all that was written of him, they took him 
down from the tree and laid him in a sepulcher." Thus, his rejection and 
death at the hands of the Jews, which might have appeared 'to Paul's 
hearers an argument against his claims, are made to tell mightily in 
his favor, by the fact that this was but the fulfillment of what the 
prophets had written concerning the Messiah. 

In this brief statement of the death and burial of Jesus, Pau'i 
makes no distinction between those who put him to death and those 
who "took him down from the tree, and laid him in the sepulcher." 
But this omission is entirely justifiable ; for, although his friends, Jo- 
seph and Nicodemus, performed the last two acts, they did it by the 
express permission of Pilate, and it may be regarded as, in a proper 
sense, the act of his enemies. 



164 



ACTS XIII: 30-34. 



30-33. The speaker proceeds to the climax of his argument; a 
proof of the Messiahship still more conclusive, if possible, than the tes- 
timony of John, or the fulfillment of prophesy. (30) " But God raised 
him from the dead; (31) and he was seen many days by those who came 
up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the 
people. (32) And we declare to you glad tidings concerning the prom- 
ise made to the fathers, (33) that God has fulfilled it to us, their chil- 
dren, by raising up Jesus; as it is also written in the second Psalm, 
Thou art my son; to-day have I begotten thee." The fact of the resur- 
rection of Jesus, so well attested, by competent witnesses, is intro- 
duced, not only as the final proof of his Messiahship, but as happy 
tidings to these Jews, being no less than the fulfillment of the promise 
to the fathers, and the realization of their most cherished hopes. 

The difficulty of applying the words of David, " Thou art my son; 
to-day I have begotten thee," to the resurrection of Jesus, has led 
many commentators to suppose that both it and the expression, " rais- 
ing up Jesus," refer to his incarnation. But these words of David, 
in every other instance of their occurrence in the New Testament, are 
applied to his resurrection, and not to his natural birth. In Hebrews 
v: 5, Paul says: "Christ glorified not himself to be made a priest, but 
he who said to him, Thou art my son ; to-day have I begotten thee." 
Now, as Christ was not a priest until after he had died as a victim, 
and was prepared to enter heaven with his own blood, it is clear that 
these words are applied to his resurrection, at the time of which he 
entered upon his priestly office. So, likewise, in Hebrews i : 5, the 
question, u To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my 
eon; to-day have I begotten thee?" is adduced as evidence of his supe- 
riority to angels, and can not, therefore, refer to the period when he 
was "made a little lower than the angels."* That the term ren- 
dered begotten may be properly referred to the resurrection is evident 
from the fact that he is called the "first begotten from the dead,"f 
and the " first born from the dead,"!: in which two expressions the 
Greek words are the same. He was the "only begotten son of God,"|| 
by his birth of the Virgin Mary ; but he became the " first born from 
the dead," or the "first born of the whole creation,"^ when he was 
declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from 
the dead.^f In applying the quotation from the second Psalm, 
therefore, to the resurrection, and endeavoring to cheer the Jews in 
Antioch, with the thought that a long-cherished and familiar promise 
was thereby fulfilled, Paul was giving his real understanding of the 
passage quoted, and it is one as much more cheering than that 
which many commentators have gathered from it, as the exaltation 
of Christ from the grave to his throne in the heavens was a more 
glorious birth than that which brought him into this sinful world. 

34-37. That we have given the true explanation of the clause last 
quoted is confirmed by the course of the argument in that which fol- 
lows, in which the speaker continues to quote from David, to prove 
that, according to his prophesies, the Messiah should rise from the 
dead. (34) "Now that he did raise him from the dead, no more to 

*Heb. ii : 9. f Rev. i : 5. J Col. i : 18. 

|'l John i : 14, 18. § Col. i : 15. f Rom. i : 4, 



ACTS XIII: 35-39. 



165 



return to corruption, he spoke thus : I will give to you the sure mercies 
of David. (35) Wherefore he also says in another psalm, Thou wilt not 
suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. (36) For David, after he had 
served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, and was added 
to his fathers, and saw corruption; (37) but he whom God raised up 
did not see corruption" 

The words quoted from the fifty-fifth chapter of Isaiah, " I will give 
you the sure mercies of David," have given no little trouble to both 
translators and interpreters. No translator can feel well satisfied with 
rendering ra boia Aavld rd mora, the sure mercies of David; yet the lit- 
eral translators have generally adopted this as the best that can be 
done. I think the words mean the holy things made sure to David. 
The purpose of the quotation is to prove that God would raise the 
Messiah from the dead no more to return to corruption. He assumes, 
therefore, that the words quoted refer to the Messiah, and that his 
hearers would not dispute the reference. Whatever, therefore, might 
otherwise be our own understanding of the words, we must take this 
as their true reference. The promise is addressed not to the Messiah, 
but to the Jews; for the pronoun you (vfxiv) is in the plural number. 
It is a promise, then, to give to the Jews the holy things faithfully 
promised to David, among which was the promise already referred to, 
"Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." It furnished, 
therefore, the required proof that the Messiah would rise, and not see 
corruption. 

The only objection which his hearers would be likely to raise against 
the argument is, that in the words, " Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy 
One to see corruption," David spoke of himself. But this objection is 
anticipated by the remark that David had fallen asleep and seen cor- 
ruption, whereas he, Jesus, whom God raised up, as was proved by the 
witnesses who saw him alive, did not see corruption; hence to him the 
words must refer. According, therefore, to the only possible applica- 
tion of David's words, and to the admitted reference of the words 
quoted from Isaiah, they were bound to admit that Jesus was the 
Messiah. 

38, 39. Having now established, by brief, but unanswerable argu- 
ments, the Messiahship of Jesus, Paul proceeds to offer the audience 
the benefit of his mediation. (38) " Be it known to you, therefore, breth- 
ren, that through this man is preached to you the remission of si?is ; (39) 
and in him every one who believes is justified from all from which you 
could not be justified in the law of Moses." The expression h rnvru, in 
him, not by him as rendered in the common version, indicates that the 
parties to be justified must be in Christ, that is, in subjection to his 
authority; as the expression h r<y vo/io, in the law, applies to those 
who were under the law, and not to uncircumcised Gentiles who were 
not under it. The benefits of the Jewish law extended only to those 
who were born in, or properly initiated into the body of people to 
whom the law was given; and just so, the remission of sins is preached 
only to those who shall be in Christ by being properly initiated into 
his body. 

By the antithesis here instituted between the law and the gospel, 
Paul assumes that there was no remission of sins enjoyed by those 



166 



ACTS XIII: 38, 39. 



under the law. For he asserts that there were some things "from, 
which they could not be justified in the law of Moses;" and in the 
expression "justified from all from which you could not be justified 
in the law," the true supplement after all is sins, taken from the pre- 
ceding clause. He announces that remission of sins is preached 
through Jesus, and from these he assumes that under the law there 
was no justification. This point, indeed, would need no argument, 
even if the context did not settle it; for certainly, if there was any 
thing from which one under the law could not be justified, it was sin ; 
and, on the other hand, in Christ we are justified from nothing but 
sin. The assumption is not, that justification can not be procured by 
works of law, for this is equalty true under Christ ; but that those under 
the law of Moses did not obtain remission of sins at all. 

Paul argues this assumption at length, in the ninth and tenth chap- 
ters of Hebrews. The only provisions in the law at all connected 
with remission of sins were its sacrifices; and he asserts of them, "It 
is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away 
sins."* It can not be rightly assumed that he contemplates these sac- 
rifices as considered apart from their typical meaning; for he makes 
no such distinction. He takes them just as he finds them, with all 
that belongs to them when offered in good faith, and makes the asser- 
tion that it is not possible for them to take away sins. In the preced- 
ing verses of the same chapter he presents a specific argument based 
upon this broad assertion: " The law, having a shadow of good things 
to come, and not the very image of those things, can never, by those 
sacrifices which they offer year by } 7 ear continually, make the comers 
thereunto perfect.^ He proves this proposition, and shows the partic- 
ular in which they were still imperfect, by adding, "For then would 
they not have ceased to be offered? Because the worshipers, once 
cleansed, would have no more conscience of sins."f If a man had 
once obtained remission of particular sins, he would, of course, as is 
here argued, no longer offer sacrifices for those sins, seeing that his 
conscience would no longer annoy him in reference to them. But 
it is a fact, he argues further, that "In those sacrifices there is a re- 
membrance of sins made every year."J The sins of the year, for 
which offerings had been made daily, were remembered again on the 
annual day of atonement, and new sacrifices offered for them, declar- 
ing to the worshiper that they were still remembered against him. As 
this continued, annually, throughout the life of the pious Jew, it left 
him in the same condition at the day of his death, and he was gath- 
ered to his fathers with his sins still unforgiven. 

The same truth is taught in the very terms of the new covenant. In 
stating the points of dissimilarity between it and the old covenant 
made at Mount Sinai, the Lord says, " I will be merciful to their un- 
righteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no 
more ;" implying that under the old covenant this blessing was not en- 
joyed. § 

We can not dismiss this topic without paying some attention to the 
question which forces itself upon us, What did the saints, under the 
old covenant, enjoy in reference to forgiveness, and what is the mean- 
* Heb. x : 4. f Heb. x : 1, 2. { Ueb. x : 3. . § Heb. vui : 8-12. 



ACTS XIII : 40, 41. 



167 



ing of the promise so often attached to sin offerings, "The priest shall 
make an atonement for him concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven 
him ?"* If we had nothing but this promise to guide us, we could but 
conclude that the party was, at the time, really forgiven; but with 
Paul's comments upon it before us, we are compelled to avoid this con- 
clusion, and seek some other explanation of the words. There can 
not be less than a promise of pardon in the words quoted; and as it 
can not be a promise fulfilled at the time, it must be a promise reserved 
to some future period for fulfillment. 

That the promise of pardon made to Jews and patriarch was re- 
served for fulfillment to the death of Christ, Paul affirms in these 
words: "On this account he is the mediator of the new covenant, that 
by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were 
under the first covenant, they who were called, (that is, the ancient 
elect,) "might receive the promise of eternal inheritance "f Here the 
reception of the "promise of eternal inheritance," by those who were 
under the first covenant, is made to depend upon the redemption of 
their transgressions. This redemption was not effected till the death 
of Christ; therefore, till his death their transgressions remained un for- 
given. Though they had the promise of pardon, and rejoiced in the 
full assurance that it would yet be granted, they were compelled to 
regard it as a blessing of the future and not of the present. Their 
enjoyment, as compared with that of the saints under the new cove- 
nant, was as that of one who has from God a promise of pardon, com- 
pared with him who has it already in possession. Their happiness, 
like ours, depended upon their faith in Cod's word. 

40, 41. This passage in Paul's speech was most unwelcome to his 
J ewish hearers. It was an express disparagement of the law of Moses 
such as always fell harshly upon Jewish ears. We consequently 
see in the next and last paragraph of the speech an indication of a 
change in the aspect of the audience. It is only an audience in 
whom a most unfavorable change is discernible, that so watchful a 
speaker could address in these words: (40) "Beware, then, lest that 
which is said in the prophets come upon you; (41) Behold, ye despisers, 
and wonder and perish ; for I do a work in your days, a work which you 
will not believe though one should fully declare it to you." No doubt 
some evidence of their incredulity was visible in their countenances, 
if it was not exhibited by audible murmurings. The force of the 
quotation was to show, that if they did reject the gospel, they would 
only be identifying themselves with a class of whom this conduct had 
been predicted. 

The surprise expressed by the prophet, that they would not believe 
though one should declare it to them, does not assume that they 
should believe facts so astounding upon the mere assertion of an in- 
dividual ; but the object of surprise is, that they would not believe 
though one should declare it fully to them, that is, with all the incon- 
testable evidences of its reality. Undoubtedly the work referred to by 
the apostle, in his application of the prophet's language, is the work 
of raising up a savior to Israel in the person of Jesus. 

42, 43. When Paul's speech was concluded, the synagogue was 

* Lev. chapters iv and v, passim, and xvi : 30-34. f Heb. ix : 15. 



168 



ACTS XIII: 42-47. 



dismissed, and the apostle had an opportunity to learn what, particular 
effects had been produced. The people, candid and outspoken, left 
him in no doubt on the subject. (42) -Now as they were going out, 
they entreated that these words shoidd be spoken to them the next Sabbath, 
(43) and, the synagogue being dismissed, many of the Jews and devout 
proselytes followed Paid and Barnabas, who, talking to them, persuaded 
them to continue in the favor of God." Thus, notwithstanding the ma- 
jority of the Jews in the audience gave such evidence of incredulity 
as to extort the warning with which Paul closed his speech, some of 
them were ready to believe; while the Gentile proselytes, less affected 
by Jewish prejudices, and, therefore, better prepared to do justice to 
the speaker, were most deeply interested. The picture which Luke 
gives of their following Paul and Barnabas in a crowd away from 
the synagogue, and keeping up an earnest conversation, is a striking 
exhibition of the simple habits of the people, as well as of the in- 
terest which they felt in the new and thrilling theme of the dis- 
course. 

44 So deep an interest kindled in the synagogue, and taking hold 
of Gentile minds, could not fail to spread widely through the city dur- 
ing the following week, and its progress was doubtless furthered by 
the most active private exertions of Paul and Barnabas. The result 
was seen in the next assemblage at the synagogue. (44) "On the next 
/Sabbath almost the whole city were gathered together to hear the word 
of God." 

45. So large an assemblage of the people, to hear a doctrine which 
appeared disparaging to the law of Moses, and which had, on this ac- 
count, already offended the mass of the Jews, could but arouse their 
utmost indignation. They acted according to their uniform policy 
under such circumstances. (45) " But the Jews, when they saw the 
multitudes were filled with zeal, and contradicted the things spoken by 
Paul, contradicting and blaspiheming." This was one of the instances 
in which Paul could say, " I bear them witness that they have a zeal 
of God, but not according to knowledge."* It was useless to reason 
with them further, or to attempt to conciliate them. 

46, 47. When men take a stand like this, nothing will satisfy them 
but an abandonment of the truth; and hence that conciliatory bear- 
ing which should mark our address to them up to this point, may, 
with propriety, be dismissed, and we may proceed without regard to 
their feelings. So the apostles acted. (46) " Then Paul and Barna- 
bas, speaking boldly, said, It was necessary that the word of God 
should first be spoken to you; but since you put it from you, and judge 
yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. 
(47) For thus has the Lord commanded us, I have placed thee as a light 
of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be for salvation to the extremity of the 
earth." -\ The remark that it was necessary that the word of God 
should first be spoken to them, before turning to the Gentiles, shows 
that the apostles understood that the gospel was uot only to begin 
in Jerusalem, but that, in every distinct community, it was to begin 
with the Jews. Hence the frequent occurrence, in Paul's style, of 
the expression, "To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile."| The 

* Rom. x ; 2. t I s - xlix : 6. % Rom. ii ; 9, 10. 



ACTS XIII: 48. 



169 



reason of this distinction has been discussed in the commentary on 
• Acts i : 8. 

48. In the next paragraph we have a statement, the meaning of 
which has excited no little controversy. (48) " On hearing this the 
Gentiles rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as 
were determined for eternal life believed. 1 ' The controversy turns upon 
the meaning of the clause bgoi r/bav TtrajfikvoL elg £ur/v alcoviov, rendered, 
in the common version "as many as were ordained to eternal life." 

- The Calvinistic writers unite in referring it to the eternal election and 
foreordination taught in their creeds. They contend, therefore, for 
the rendering "were ordained," or "were appointed." If their inter- 
pretation were admitted, it would involve the passage in some diffi- 
culties which none of them seem to have noticed. If it be true that 
"as many as were foreordained to eternal life believed," then there 

, were none of the foreordained left in that community who did not 
believe. Hence, all those who did not then believe, whether adults or 
infants, were among the reprobate, who were predestinated to everlast- 
ing punishment. Now it is certainly most singular that so complete 
a separation of the two parties should take place throughout a 
whole community at one time; and still more singular that Luke 
should so far depart from the custom of inspired writers as to 
state the fact. Again, the same statement implies that all who be- 
lieved on that occasion were of the elect. For, if the parties who 
believed were those who had been foreordained to eternal life, then 
none of the non-elect could have been among the number. Here is 
another anomalous incident: that on this occasion all who believed 
were of the number who would finally be saved, and that Luke should 
be informed of the fact and make it known to his readers. Certainly 
we should not adopt an interpretation involving conclusions so anom- 
alous, unless we are compelled to do so by the obvious force of the 
words employed. 

It is worthy of note that the efforts of Calvinistic writers to prove 
that this is the meaning of these words consist chiefly in strong as- 
sertions to that effect, and in attempts to answer the feebler class of 
the objections urged against- it. Thus Dr. Hackett asserts: " This is 
the only translation which the philology of the passage allows." 
But he makes no effort to prove that the New Testament usage of the 
principal word involved allows this translation. The word rendered 
ordained in this passage is raaao) — a term which is not employed in a 
single instance in the New Testament in the sense of foreordained. 
Where that idea is to be expressed, other words are uniformly em- 
ployed. 

The word in question is a generic term, having no single word in 
English to fully represent it. Its generic sense is best represented by 
our phrase, set in order. In its various specific applications, how- 
ever, we have single terms which accurately represent it. Thus, when 
Jesus Ira^aro set in order a certain mountain in Galilee as a place to 
meet his* disciples,* or the Jews in Rome ra^aiitvot set in order a day 
to meet Paul,f we best express the idea by appointed.^ But when 



* Matt, xxviii': 16. f Acts xxviii : 23. 

X It expresses the same idea in Luke vii : 8 ; Acts xxii : 10. 

15 



170 



ACTS XIII: 48. 



Paul says of civil rulers that "the existing authorities TEray^evai ewtv 
were set in order by God,"* he does not intend to affirm that God had 
appointed those rulers, but merely asserts his general providence in 
their existence and arrangement. The idea is best expressed in En- 
glish by using the phrase set in order, or by saying they were ar- 
ranged by God. When he asserts of the household of Stephanas, in 
Corinth, that eratjav eavrovg they set themselves in order for ministering 
to the saints,f we would say they devoted themselves to ministering 
to the saints. But when the brethren in Antioch had been puzzled 
by the disputation between Paul and Barnabas and "certain men who 
came down from Judea," in reference to circumcision, and they finally 
erd^av, set in order, to send some of both parties to the apostles and 
elders in Jerusalem for a decision, the common version very cor- 
rectly renders it, " they determined that Paul and Barnabas and cer- 
tain others of them should go. "J 

In reference to the propriety of this last rendering, Dr. Hackett as- 
serts that this term " was not used to denote an act of the mind;"\\ but 
the awkward translation of this passage to which the assertion forces 
him is evidence conclusive against it. He renders it, " They appointed 
that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to 
Jerusalem. "£ This is an ungrammatical use of the word appointed. 
When a mission has been determined upon, we appoint the individuals 
who shall be sent, but we do not appoint that they shall go. Evidently, 
the state of the case was this: the brethren were at first undetermined 
what to do in reference to the question in dispute, but finally determ- 
ined to send to Jerusalem for an authoritative decision of it. When a 
man is undetermined in reference to a pressing question, his mind is 
in confusion; but when he determines upon his course, it is no longer 
confusion, but is set in order. The term in question, therefore, meaning 
primarily to set in order, is most happily adapted to the expression of 
such a state of mind. Our English word dispose has a similar usage. 
It means to arrange in a certain order, and applies primarily to external 
objects; but when one's mind is found arranged in accordance with a 
certain line of conduct, we say he is disposed to pursue it. 

We scarcely need observe, after the above remarks, that the specific 
meaning attached to the generic term in question^ in any particular 
passage, is to be determined by the context. In the passage we are 
now considering, the context has no allusion to any thing like an 
appointment of one part, and a rejection of the other; but the writer 
draws a line of distinction between the conduct of certain Gentiles and 
that of the Jews addressed by Paul in the closing paragraph of his 
speech. To render the contrast between the two more conspicuous, 
he throws his words into antithesis with those of Paul. Paul had 
said to the Jews, " You put the word of God from you ;" Luke says of 
the Gentiles, "They glorified the word of the Lord." Paul said, "You 
judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life;" Luke says, many of the 
Gentiles " were determined for everlasting life." It is an act of the 
mind to which Paul objects on the part of the Jews, and it is as 
clearly an act of mind in the Gentiles which Luke puts in contrast 
with it. At some previous time in their history, these Gentiles, like 

* Eom. xiii : 2. f 1 Cor « xvi : 15 « J Acts xv: 2. \ Com. in loco. §Coni.xv:2. 



ACTS XIII: 49-52. 



171 



all others, had been undetermined in reference to everlasting life, 
either because they were not convinced that there was such a state, 
or because they hesitated to seek for it. But now their minds were 
set in order upon the subject, by being determined to labor for the eter- 
nal life which Paul preached. 

It now remains, in order to full elucidation of the passage, that we 
account for the connection indicated between their being determined 
for everlasting life, and their believing. The former stands as a cause 
which led to the latter. Let it be noted that everlasting life is not 
contemplated as the object of their belief, for, if it was, they would have 
had to believe in it, before they could determine for it; so that the order 
of the two mental acts would be reversed. But, in common with the 
Jews, who had been their religious instructors, they already believed 
in a future state, and what they now learned to believe by Paul's 
preaching was the gospel of Christ. Those of them who had, either 
through previous religious instruction, or through the influence of 
Paul's preaching, heartily determined for eternal life, were in a better 
frame of mind to appreciate the evidence in favor of that Christ 
through whom alone it could be obtained, than the others who were 
so undetermined upon the subject 'that they appeared to judge them- 
selves unworthy of such a destiny. Such was the difference between 
the two classes in the audience, and Luke's object is to declare the re- 
sult of this difference in the fact that the one class believed, and the 
other thrust the word of God from them. To say that the difference 
had been wrought in them exclusively by divine agency would be to 
rob them of responsibility. Or to say that the favorably-disposed 
party had become so exclusively by their own self-determining energy 
would be to deny the influence of divine truth. Neither of these posi- 
tions can be true; but, while it was an act of their own minds to de- 
termine for eternal life, it was God who had induced them to do so; at 
the same time, the other party determined against eternal life,' in de- 
spite of the same divine influence exerted upon them. 

49-52. The animosity of the Jews, excited by the success of the 
apostles, finally resulted in their expulsion from the city. The ac- 
count is given in brief terms: (49) "And the word of the Lord was 
published throughout the whole region. (50) But the Jews stirred up the 
devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised a 
persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their 
borders. (51) And they, shaking off the dust of their feet against them, 
went into Iconium. (52) But the disciples were full of joy and the Holy 
Spirit." The means by which this persecution was brought about 
serves to illustrate the relation which the Jews who were settled in 
Gentile cities sustained to the surrounding society. They had no po- 
litical power in their own hands, and dared not lay violent hands 
upon the apostles. But certain " honorable women," wives of the 
u chief men of the city," had come under their influence by attending 
the synagogue worship, and through them they gained access to their 
unbelieving husbands so as to induce them to expel Paul and Barna- 
bas. It is a suggestive fact, that the women who were made instru- 
ments of a transaction so discreditable are styled " devout women." It 
shows that devotion in the worship of God, like zeal when not accord- 



172 



ACTS XIV: 1-4. 



ing to knowledge, may be made to do the devil's own work. The 
more devout one's feelings, while his mind is corrupted by false con- 
ceptions of duty, the greater mischief he is likely to do; so far is it 
from being true, that to make the heart right is to make the whole 
man right. No man is safe without a proper understanding of his 
duty, derived from the word of God. 

Paul and Barnabas were not without indignation when they were 
thus ignominiously expelled from the city; but the only exhibition 
which they made of it was that which the Savior had directed; " they 
shook off the dust of their feet against them."* This was not a mere 
idle or childish mark of resentment, as it would be in an uninspired 
teacher; but was designed as "a testimony against them," a solemn 
warning of the righteous judgment of God, whom they had rejected 
in rejecting his chosen messengers, f 

We would imagine that the young disciples, from whom their relig- 
ious teachers were thus violently driven away, would have been over- 
whelmed with grief and fear. But we are told, as quoted above, that 
they were " filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit." The full assur- 
ance given by the gospel of that everlasting life which they had "de- 
termined for," and the belief that the Spirit of God dwelt in their 
mortal bodies, supplied them with a joy which was no longer depend- 
ent on human agency, and of which human power could not deprive 
them. 

XIV: 1, 2. In Iconium the two missionaries met with better suc- 
cess than in Antioch, but they encountered similar opposition, and 
from the same source. (1) u Now it came to pass in Iconium, that they 
went together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great 
multitude, both of the Jews and the Greeks, believed. (2) But the uhbe- 
lieving Jews stirred up and disaffected the minds of the Gentiles against 
the brethren." The multitude of Jews and Gentiles who believed must 
have been "great," not in comparison to the whole population, but to 
the number who were usually convinced under such circumstances, 
and especially to the number who had just been convinced in Antioch. 
For we see that the unbelieving Jews were still an influential body, 
and the remark that they " disaffected the minds of the Gentiles" indi- 
cates that the mass of the Gentiles were still unbelievers. 

It should not escape the notice of the reader, that the conviction of 
these people is attributed distinctly to the force of what the apostles 
spoke. They "so spoke that a great multitude believed." This is one 
among many incidental remarks of Luke, which indicate that he had 
no conception of the modern doctrine that faith is produced by an ab- 
stract operation of the Holy Spirit, and which confirm by historic 
facts the doctrine of Paul, that faith comes by hearing the word of 
God.J 

3-7. This divided and excited state of the public mind continued 
during the whole time that Paul and Barnabas remained in the city. 
(3) " They continued there a long time, speaking boldly respecting the 
Jjord, who bore testimony to the word of his favor, and granted signs and 
wonders to be 'done through their hands. (4) Yet the multitude of the 
city was divided: some were with the Jews, and others with the apos' 
* Mark vi : 11. t Luke x : 16. J Rom. x : 17. 



ACTS XIV : 5-7. 



173 



ties. (5) But when an onset was made by both Gentiles and Jews, 
with their rulers, to abuse and stone them, (6) they, being aware of it, fled 
down to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra, and Derbe, and the surrounding 
country ; (7) and there they preached the gospel." In the rapid sketch 
which Luke is giving us of this rather hurried missionary tour, hi 
makes no definite note of time, to indicate how long the two mission- 
aries remained at any particular place. The above remark, that they 
continued in Iconium "a long time," is the only note of the kind in 
the tour, and it is very indefinite. It only indicates that their stay 
here was long in comparison with that at most other places during 
this tour. 

Though their preaching here was not as successful as might have 
been expected from the length of time employed, it received abund- 
ant attestations of the Lord's approval. The proof of this fact ad- 
duced by Luke is quite different from that often adduced for a similar 
purpose by modern writers. Now, the proof that a man's ministry 
is "owned and accepted" by the Lord, is found in the "abundant out- 
pourings of the Spirit" which attend it; and this, in other words, 
means the number of "powerful conversions" with which it is re- 
warded. But the Lord's method of bearing testimony to the word of 
his favor, according to Luke, was by "granting signs and wonders to 
be done" by the hands of the preachers; while not 'a word is said, 
either by him or any other inspired writer, of such a spiritual attesta- 
tion as is now so confidently referred to. This shows that our modern 
revivalists have confounded the attestations of the word by signs and 
miracles, which was common, in apostolic times, with the exciting 
scenes which now occur in their revivals. This mistake not only con- 
founds things essentially different, but assumes that the apostles were 
accustomed to scenes of which they never dreamed. Moreover, it 
erects a false and very injurious standard by which to judge whether 
a man's ministry is acceptable to God. If the preacher who is most 
successful in gaining converts is the one whose ministry is most ac- 
ceptable to God, then there is not the same value in earnest piety, a 
blameless life, and watchful oversight of the flock which the apostolic 
epistles would lead us to believe; since it sometimes occurs that men 
who obtain the fame of great "revivalists," are quite deficient in these 
essential characteristics of an acceptable minister of the Word. 

The onset made by the multitude, like the similar proceeding in An- 
tioch, was instigated by the unbelieving Jews, though effected chiefly 
by the Grentiles and the rulers of the city. The escape of the mission- 
aries must have been narrow, and was probably owing to the kindness 
of some stranger, whom Paul and Barnabas may have remembered 
with gratitude, but whose name will not be known to the great world 
till the day of eternity. 

8-12. The district of Lycaonia, into which the apostles had fled, was 
an interior district of Asia Minor, lying north of the Taurus Mount- 
ains, but of very indefinite boundaries. The exact situation of the 
two towns, Lystra and Derbe, is not now known. With the character 
of the people, however, which is the important consideration in a nar- 
rative like this, we are made sufficiently acquainted by the narrative 
itself. It was one of those retired districts, remote from the great 



174 



ACTS XIV: 8-13. 



marts of trade and the routes of travel, where the people retained 
their primitive habits, spoke their primitive dialect, and knew little of 
either the civilization of the Greeks, or the religion of the Jews. This 
rude state of society will account for some of the peculiarities of the 
following narrative. 

Finding no Jewish synagogues, to afford them an assembly of de- 
vout hearers, the missionaries took advantage of such other opportu- 
nities as offered, to get the ears of the people. Having succeeded in 
collecting a croAvd in Lystra, they met with the following incident: 
(8) U A certain man in Lystra was sitting, impotent in his feet, a cripple 
from Jvs birth, who had never walked. (9) The same was listening to 
Paul speaking, who, looking intently upon him, and seeing that he had 
faith to be healed, (10) said with a loud voice, Stand upright on your 
feet;* and he leaped and walked about. (11) The multitude, seeing what 
Paul did, lifted up their voice in the speech of Lycaonia, and said, The 
gods have come down to us in the likeness of men. (12) And they called 
Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul, because he was th e chief speaker, Mercury. 1 ' 

Although Paul had been speaking to them of the true God, and of 
his Son Jesus Christ, until the cripple, at least, believed; yet, when the 
miracle was wrought before them, all their heathenish ideas rushed 
back upon their minds, and they at once supposed that they stood in 
the presence o gods. Such'was the natural conclusion of men who 
had been educated from childhood to believe the strange inventions of 
heathen mythology. It was an honest mistake, committed through 
ignorance. 

Their conclusion as to which of the gods had appeared, was as nat- 
ural and as instantaneous as their conviction that they were gods. 
They had a temple, or a statue, or perhaps both, in front of their city, 
as we learn below, to the honor of Jupiter; hence any god who might 
appear to them would be naturally taken for him. But when two gods 
appeared together, the one who acts as chief speaker could be no other 
than Mercury, the god of Eloquence, and the constant attendant of 
Jupiter in his terrestrial visits. The remark of Luke that Paul was 
called Mercury "because he was the chief speaker," shows that he 
was familiar with Greek mythology. 

13. The people felt the warmest gratitude for the visit of their sup- 
posed gods, and gave expression to their feeling in the most approved 
method. (13) " Then the priest of the Jupiter that was before the city 
brought bulls and garlands to the gates, and, with the people, wished to 
offer sacrifices to them! 1 The garlands of flowers were designed, ac- 
cording to a well-known custom of the ancients, to deck the forms of 
the bulls about to be offered. It is not altogether certain whether the 
" gates " referred to are those of a private court within which Paul and ' 
Barnabas may have retired when first greeted as gods, or the gates of 
the city, of which there may have been two or more in the same part 
of the wall, and near which the apostles may have remained with a 
part of the crowd. The latter I regard as the most probable supposi- 
tion.-)- The sacrifices were to be offered to the supposed gods in per- 
son, and not to the image which stood before the city. 

■■' On the faith to be healed. See Com. Acts iii : 16. 

f The ci iticism of Mr. Howson, vol. 1, p. 193, note upon 7tvKuiy:; as meaning only the 



ACTS XIV: 14-18. 



175 



14-18. Nothing could have been more unexpected or more painful 
to the humble missionaries, than a demonstration of this kind. The 
purpose of the priest and the crowd with him was, doubtless, commu- 
nicated to them before the rites were commenced. (14) " Which when 
the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard, they rent their clothes, and ran 
into the croivd, crying aloud, (15) and saying, Men, why do you do these 
things ? We are men of like passions with yourselves, preaching the gos- 
pel to you, that you should turn from these vanities to the living God, 
who made the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are 
in them; (16) who in generations past suffered all the Gentiles to go on 
in their own ways ; (17) although he did not leave himself without testi- 
mony, doing good, and giving you rains from heaven, and fruitful seasons, 
filling your hearts with food and gladness. (18) And by saying these 
things they with difficulty restrained the people from offering sacrifice to 
them." 

The habit of rending one's clothes under the influence of sudden 
passion, which Paul and Barnabas had inherited from their ancestors, 
and fell into on this occasion, appears very singular to the taste of 
western nations. The earliest historical traces of it are found in the 
family of Jacob,* and the example of Job;f and the latest in the in- 
stance before us, which is the only one recorded of the apostles. How 
so childish and destructive a custom could have originated, it is diffi- 
cult to imagine; but when once introduced, it is easy to see how it 
might be transmitted by imitation, until the use of more costly gar- 
ments would put a stop to it with the economical, or the restraints of 
a more enlightened piety would mollify the passions of the religious. 
It was, certainly, very inconsistent with the calm self-possession incul- 
cated by Christ and the apostles; but we can excuse Barnabas and 
Saul on this occasion, in consideration of their early habits, which 
often spring unexpectedly upon men in a moment of sudden excite- 
ment. 

In describing their effort to restrain the idolatry of the multitude, 
Luke once more reverses their names, saying Barnabas and Saul, as 
he did before the conversion of Sergius Paulus. This is because Bar- 
nabas was called Jupiter, and was the chief figure in this scene. The 
care with which Luke thus changes the order of their names, accord- 
ing as one or the other is most prominent, confirms what we have 
already said of the pre-eminence of Barnabas previous to the com- 
mencement of this missionary tour.J 

Though Barnabas, on this occasion, received the chief honor at the 
hands of the people, yet Paul continued to play the part of Mercury 
which the people had assigned him ; for the speech to the idolaters 
bears unmistakable marks of his paternity. Mr. Howson notices 
the coincidence between the exhortation to the Lystrians, that they 
" should turn from these vanities to the living God," and his remark 
to the Thessalonians, that they had " turned from idols to serve the 
living and true God; " between the remark that "in generations past 
God suffered the Gentiles to go on in their own ways," and his state- 
gates of a private court, is refuted by its frequent use in Revolations for the gates of a city, 
xxi : 12, 13, '21-25. 

* Gen. xxxvii : 29-34. f Job * : 20 « t See Com » xiii : 9 « 



176 



ACTS XIV: 19, 20. 



ment to the Athenians, that " the times of this ignorance God had 
overlooked;" and finally, between the argument by which he proves 
that God had not left himself without testimony among the heathen, 
and that in Romans, where he says, (to quote the common version,) 
"The invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are 
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his 
eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." To 
which I would add, that the coincidence in thought between this speech, 
so far as reported, and that made in Athens to another company of 
idolaters is so striking, that the latter might be regarded as the same 
speech, only modified to suit the circumstances of the audience and 
the peculiarities of the occasion. 

The speech and manner of the apostles finally brought the people 
back to their senses. It was a sad disappointment to know T that their 
wonderful visitors were only men like themselves, and this conviction 
left them in great bewilderment as to the nature of the superhuman 
power which Paul had exerted. 

19. This state of suspense was most favorable to the acceptance of 
Paul's own explanation of his miraculous power, and consequently to 
their belief of the gospel ; and we can not doubt that some of the disci- 
ples, whom we afterward find there, owed their conviction, in part, to 
this circumstance. But with those who did not promptly embrace the 
faith, the same suspense made room for explanations unfavorable to 
conviction, and such explanations were soon given. (19) "But Jews 
from Antioch and Iconium came thither r and having persuaded the multi' 
tude, and stoned Paul, they dragged him out of the city, supposing that he 
was dead." The readiness with which a people who had so recently 
offered divine honors to Paul were persuaded to stone him to death, 
though at the first glance surprising, is but a natural result of all the 
circumstances. That portion of them who had been prominent in the 
idolatrous proceedings felt mortified at the discovery of their mistake, 
and were naturally inclined to excuse their own folly by throwing cen- 
sure upon the innocent objects of it. The Jews stimulated this feeling 
by urging that Paul was an impostor, and that all the honorable 
women and chief men of Antioch and Iconium had united in driving 
him away from those cities. This enabled them to charge him with 
willful deception, and as their feelings were already keyed up to their 
utmost tension they were easily swayed to the opposite extreme, and 
at a nod from the Jews they were ready to dash him to pieces. That 
Paul, rather than Barnabas, was the victim of their wrath, resulted 
from the fact that both here and in the cities from which the Jews 
had come, he was the chief speaker. The same circumstance which 
had given him the inferior place in their idolatry, gave him, finally, 
the superior place in their hatred. 

20. Although Paul's physical constitution was feeble, he had, as is 
often the case with such constitutions, great tenacity of life. The mob 
left him, thinking he was dead. (20) " But while the' disciples were 
standing around him) he rose up, and entered into the city, and the next 
day he went out with Barnabas into JDerbe." 

21. 22. Having been compelled to fly from Antioch to Iconium, and 
from Iconium to Lystra, wading into deeper dangers at every step, 



ACTS XIV: 21-23. 



177 



who can tell the feelings with which the wounded missionary enters 
the gate of another heathen city, bearing visible marks of the indig- 
nity he had suffered, to excite the contempt of the people ? We know, 
from the expression given to his feelings on some other occasions, 
that now they must have been gloomy indeed. But he who brings 
light out of darkness caused a refreshing light to shine upon the dark- 
ening pathway of his faithful servant, by granting him here a peaceful 
and abundant harvest of souls. (21) 11 And when they had preached the 
gospel in that city, and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra^ 
Iconium and Antioch, (22) confirming the souls of the disciples, exhort- 
ing them to continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we 
must enter into the kingdom of God." Luke passes hurriedly over these 
scenes; but the uninspired imagination loves to linger among them, 
to sympathize with the suffering apostles in their athictions and com- 
forts, and also with the congregations in the four cities, as the two 
brethren, who had come among them like visitors from a better world, 
were bidding them farewell, and leaving them to make their own way 
through many temptations into the everlasting kingdom of Grod. 

23. They were left as "sheep in the midst of wolves;" but they 
were committed to the care of the great Shepherd of the sheep, and 
were supplied with under-shepherds to keep them in the fold. (23) 
" And having appointed for them elders in every Church, and prayed ivith 
fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. 11 Here 
we have the same prayer and fasting, connected with the appointment 
of elders, which we have already noticed upon the appointment of 
the seven deacons in J erusalem, and upon the sending forth of Paul 
and Barnabas from Antioch. The laying on of hands, which was a 
part of the ceremony on those occasions, is not here mentioned; but 
as we have already seen that it was a part of the ceremony of ap- 
pointment to office,"* and as the apostles are said to have appointed 
these elders, we may safely infer that it was not omitted. 

As the office exercised by these elders, and the number of them in 
each congregation, have been made subjects of controversy, we will de- 
vote some space to grouping a few facts which bear upon these points. 
The passage before us contains the earliest mention of the appointment 
of elders, yet these were by no means the first elders appointed. For 
Paul and Barnabas, when sent to Jerusalem with a contribution for the 
poor saints, delivered it to " the elders. "f This shows that there were 
already elders in the Churches in Judea. Paul and Barnabas, on their 
present tour, appointed elders in every Church ; Titus was left in Crete 
that he might set in order the things that were omitted, and appoint 
elders in every city ; % and James takes it for granted that every 
Church has elders, by directing, in his general epistle, that the sick 
should call for the elders of the Church, to pray for them and anoint 
them with oil, with a view to their recovery. || In view of these facts, 
it can not be doubted that the office of elder was universal in the 
apostolic Churches. 

That the term elder is used as an official title, and not merely to 
indicate the older members of the Church, is sufficiently evident from 
the fact that men became elders by appointment, whereas an appoint- 
* Coin, vi : G ; xiii : 3. | Acts xi : 30. % Titus i : 5. fl James v ; 14, 



178 



ACTS XIV: 23. 



meat can not make one an old man. The fact that these officers 
were called elders indicates that they were generally selected from 
the elderly class; still, it does not necessarily imply that, to be an 
elder officially, a man must be an elder in years. Terms which are 
appropriated as official titles do not always retain their original mean- 
ings. Whether advanced age is necessary to the elder's office is to be 
determined, not by the official title, but by the qualifications pre- 
scribed. But, inasmuch as no such qualification is anywhere pre- 
scribed, we conclude that any brother who possesses the qualifications 
which are prescribed, may be made an elder, though he be not an old 
man. 

The term bishop in our common version, rendered in some English 
versions overseer, is but another title for this same officer. This is evi- 
dent, first, from the fact that the same brethren of the congregation in 
Ephesus, who came down to Miletus to meet Paul, are styled by Luke 
" elders of the Church," and by Paul, bishops* Second, in the epistle to 
Titus, Paul uses the two terms interchangeably. He tells Titus that he 
left him in Crete to ordain elders in every city, prescribes some of the 
qualifications for the office, and assigns as a reason for them, "for a 
bishop must be blameless," etc. If Washington, in his Farewell Ad- 
dress, had advised the American people to always elect as President 
a man of known integrity, and had given as a reason for it that the 
chief magistrate of a great people should be of blameless reputation, 
it would be as reasonable to deny that the terms president and chief 
magistrate are used interchangeably, as that the terms elder and bishop 
are in this passage. 

That there was a plurality of elders in each congregation could 
hardly be disputed by an unbiased reader of the New Testament. 
Two facts, alone, would seem sufficient to settle this question : first, 
the fact that Titus was to ordain elders, not an elder, in every city;f 
second, that they were elders, and not an elder from the Church in 
Ephesus, who came to meet Paul at Miletus.^ The objection some- 
times urged, that there may have been several Churches in each of 
these cities, and that the plurality of elders was made up of the single 
elders from the individual Churches, is based upon a conjecture utterly 
without historic foundation. But if the argument from these passages 
were waived, the issue is conclusively settled by the statement of our 
text, that Paul and Barnabas "appointed elders in every Church." A 
plurality of elders, therefore, and not a single one, were appointed for 
each Church. 

A full exhibition of the duties of the elder's office, and of the moral 
and intellectual qualifications requisite to an appointment thereto, be- 
longs to a commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy, rather than 
on Acts of Apostles. We will not, therefore, consider them here, fur- 
ther than to observe that the duties were such as can not be safely 
di-spensed with in any congregation; while the qualifications were such 
as were then, and are now, but seldom combined in a single individual. 
Indeed, it can not be supposed that Paul found in the young congre- 
gations of Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and every other planted during 
this tour, men who could fill up the measure of the qualifications 

* Acts xx : 17, 28, t Titus 1 : 5 - t Acts : 17. 



ACTS XIV: 23. 



179 



which he prescribes for this office.* But he appointed elders in every 
Church, hence he must have selected those who came nearest the 
standard. It is not an admissible objection to this argument, that in- 
spiration may have supplied the defects of certain brethren in each 
congregation, so as to fully qualify them ; for moral excellencies, which 
are the principal of these qualifications, are not supplied by inspira- 
tion. The truth is, the qualifications for this office, like the charac- 
teristics prescribed for old men, aged women, young men and women, 
and widows, respectively, are to be regarded as a model for imitation, 
rather than a standard to which all elders must fully attain. It were 
as reasonable to keep persons of these respective ages out of the 
Church, until they fill up the characters prescribed for them, as to 
keep a Church without elders until it can furnish men perfect in the 
qualifications of the office. Common sense and Scripture authority 
both unite in demanding that we should rather follow Paul's exam- 
ple, and appoint elders in every Church from the best material which 
the Church affords. 

The qualifications to be prescribed for one who would fill an office 
depend upon the duties of the office. Imperfection in the qualifica- 
tions leads to proportionate inefficiency in the performance of the 
duties. Seeing, then, that but few men are found possessing, in a high 
degree, all the qualifications for the office of bishop, we should not be 
surprised that its duties have generally been more or less inefficiently 
performed. Much less should we, as so many have done, seek a rem- 
edy for this inefficiency, in an entire subversion of the Church organi- 
zation instituted by the apostles. After all that can be said to the 
contrary, the apostolic plan has proved itself more efficient than any 
of those invented by men. Those congregations of the present day 
which are under the oversight of an efficient eldership, other things 
being equal, come nearer, in every good word and work, to the apos- 
tolic model of a Church of Christ, than any others in Christendom. 
And those which have a comparatively inefficient eldership will com- 
pare most favorably with those under an inefficient pastorship of any 
other kind. Finally, such inefficiency is not, after all, more frequently 
found in the eldership than in what is popularly styled the ministry. 
This must be so, from the fact that the qualifications for the office, 
public speaking alone excepted, are more frequently found combined 
in three or four men, than in one, whether pastor, or class-leader, or 
whatever may be his title. The folly, therefore, of abandoning the 
apostolic eldership in favor of any other organization, is demonstrated 
by history; while its wickedness must be apparent to every one who 
esteems apostolic precedents above human expedients. To seek an 
escape from the condemnation due for this wickedness, by asserting 
that the apostles left no model of Church organization, is only to add 
to the original crime by perverting the Scriptures to excuse it. So long 
as it stands recorded that Paul and Barnabas "appointed for them 
elders in every Church," and so long as the duties of these officers 
remain carefully prescribed in the apostolic epistles, so long will it be 
false to deny that the apostles left us a definite model of Church or- 
ganization, and wicked in the sight of God to abandon it for any other. 

* 1 Tim. iii : 1-7. 



180 



ACTS XIV: 24-28; XV: 1. 



24-26. Leaving Antioch of Pisidia, the apostles returned as far as 
the sea-coast by the same route through which they had gone up into 
Pisidia. (24) "And passing through Pisidia, they came into Pamphylia ; 

(25) and having spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 

(26) Thence they sailed to Antioch, whence they had been commended to 
the favor of God for the work which they had performed." Perga, on 
the river Cestrus, a few miles above its mouth, was the point at which 
they had disembarked on their first arrival from Cyprus. They had 
made no delay there at first, but now we are told that they " spoke the 
word in Perga." Luke's silence in reference to the result of this effort 
is an indication that it was not very decided. It is probable that their 
design was simply to usefully employ an interval during which they 
were, waiting for a vessel bound to Antioch. This conjecture is con- 
firmed by the fact that they finally left Perga by land, and walked 
down to Attalia on the sea-coast, where they would be likely to meet 
with a vessel without so long delay. They were not disappointed; for 
"thence they sailed to Antioch." 

27, 28. The apostles had now completed their missionary tour, and 
there could but be great anxiety in the congregation who had sent them 
forth, to know the result of their labors. It was the first mission ever 
sent to the heathen world. The missionaries were as eager to report 
the success with which their sufferings and toil had been crowned, as 
the congregation were to hear it. He who returns from a hard-fought 
field bearing good tidings, pants beneath the burden of his untold 
story. (27) u And having arrived and assembled the Church together, 
they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and that he had opened 
a door of faith to the Gentiles. (28) And they continued there no little 
time with the disciples." In the statement that God had " opened a 
door of faith to the Gentiles," there is an allusion both to the opening 
of that national inclosure which had hitherto confined the gospel al- 
most exclusively to the Jews, and the introduction of the distant Gen- 
tiles through that door into the Church. Before this, faith had been 
to them inaccessible; for "how shall they believe on him of whom 
they have not heard?" But now that the preachers had been sent 
out to them, the door was open, and faith was accessible to all. 

XV: 1. At this point in the narrative our historian makes a sudden 
transition from the conflicts of the disciples with the unbelieving 
world to one almost as serious among themselves. There never was 
a national antipathy more intense than that felt by the Jews to the 
whole Gentile world. It was the more intense, from the fact that it 
was imbedded in their deepest religious sentiments, and was cultivated 
in all their devotions. In the hearts of the disciples this feeling had, 
by this time, been so far overcome, that they had' admitted the pro- 
priety of receiving uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church. But they 
found it more difficult to convince themselves that Gentiles were to 
be admitted into social and domestic intimacy. Hence, when Peter 
returned from the house of Cornelius to Jerusalem, the chief objec- 
tion urged against him was, not that he had immersed Gentiles, but 
" Thou didst go into the house of men uncircumcised, and didst eat with 
them." This was the full extent to which the judaizing party in the 
Church were prepared, at that time, to push their objections. But 



ACTS XV: 1, 2. 



181 



when men take an unreasonable and obstinate stand against any 
cause, they frequently assume more extravagant ground as the cause 
they are opposing advances. While but a few Gentiles had come into 
the Church, the pharisaic party objected only to domestic associa- 
tion with them ; but now that Paul and Barnabas had succeeded in 
opening a door of faith to the whole Gentile world, and it was likely 
that the Jews, who had hitherto constituted almost the whole body 
of the Church, were soon to become only a small element in its con- 
stituency, their fears were excited, and their demands became more 
exorbitant. Paul and Barnabas were still in Antioch. (1) "And cer- 
tain men came down from Judea, and taught the brethren, Unless you are 
circumcised according to the law of Moses, you can not be saved." As 
we learn from a subsequent part of this chapter, they were not con- 
tent with merely enjoining circumcision, but also exacted the observ- 
ance of all the law of Moses, to which circumcision was only prelim- 
inary.* The success of this party would have perpetuated Judaism, 
and forever have neutralized those philanthropic principles of the 
gospel which the experience of the world and the wisdom of God 
alike had shown to be necessary to the moral renovation of the human 
race. 

2. If Paul and Barnabas had ever been, since their conversion, 
blinded by these narrow views, their labors among the Gentiles would 
have wrought a change in their feelings, and prepared them to see the 
subject in a better light. They opposed the new propositions with all 
their powers; and though they did not succeed in silencing their oppo- 
nents, they brought the discussion to a fortunate conclusion. (2) 11 When 
therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation 
with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others 
of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders abottt this 
question." 

If the brethren in Antioch had estimated at its proper value the 
authority of an inspired apostle, they would have yielded implicitly 
to Paul's decision without this mission to Jerusalem. But they were 
as yet too little accustomed to reflection upon the profound mystery 
of apostolic infallibility to properly accredit it; and their deep preju- 
dices on the subject under discussion was a serious obstacle in the 
w r ay of clear thought. It is probable that apostolic authority is more 
highly appreciated now than it was then; yet the prejudices of sect 
and party are so intense, that even now the dictum of a living apostle 
would prove insufficient, in millions of cases, to convince men of their 
errors. Like the disciples in Antioch, who had the testimony of Paul, 
men now are not easily satisfied with a single inspired statement upon 
a point in dispute, or with the statements of a single apostle, but 
demand an accumulation of even divine testimonies. 

It is probable that Paul would have objected to making this ap- 
peal to the other apostles, on the ground of its apparent inconsistency 
with his own claims to inspired authority, had not the proposition 
been sustained by an express revelation of the divine will. In the 
second chapter of Galatians, where Mr. Howson very clearly proves 
that Paul has reference to this journey, f he says: "I went up by 



* Acta xv : 24. 



f Vol. i, p. 227, et seq. 



182 



ACTS XV: 3-5. 



revelation and communicated to them that gospel which I preach 
among the Gentiles." It was the divine purpose to settle the question, 
not for the Church in Antioch alone, but for all the world and for all 
time. 

3. Their journey to Jerusalem, which* was accomplished by land, 
lay through two sections of country which had already been evan- 
gelized to a considerable extent. (3) " Being sent forward by the Church, 
they passed through Phenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of the 
Gentiles : and they caused great joy to all the brethren." The Churches 
in Samaria did not, of course, sympathize with the Jewish prejudices, 
and although in Phenicia there were doubtless many Jews, yet the 
Gentile element sufficiently predominated to enable the brethren there, 
like the Samaritans, to rejoice that the gospel was spreading into the 
heathen world. 

4. After a pleasant journey among rejoicing Churches, they reached 
Jerusalem. (4) " And when they arrived in Jerusalem, they were re- 
ceived by the Church, and by the apostles and elders, and they declared 
all that God had done with them." They proceeded, in Jerusalem, as 
they had upon their return to Antioch, to give a history of their mis- 
sionary tour. This was done in the presence of the Church, the apostles 
also being present. 

5. The Judaizers did not hesitate to declare fully their own position. 
(5) " But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, rose up, saying, 
It was necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the 
law of Moses." This party are here identified as converts from the 
old sect of the Pharisees. We have had no account hitherto of 
any large accessions to the Church from this party ; but this inci- 
dental remark shows that some of these obstinate opposers of the 
truth had yielded, and were now occupying positions of influence in 
the congregation. Paul now once more meets some of his old com- 
panions in the persecution of the disciples^ not to harmonize with them, 
nor to dispute with them in the synagogues concerning the claims of 
Christ; but to contend, within the Church itself, against that same dis- 
position to perpetuate the law which had made them formerly fight 
against the gospel. He had a bad opinion of some of them, which 
must have been well founded, or he would not have given the public 
utterance to it which he did at a subsequent period. He styles them, 
in the Epistle to the Galatians, " False brethren, unawares brought in, 
who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ 
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage."* Having witnessed a 
rapid increase of the congregations under the pressure of the perse- 
cutions and disputations to which they had formerly resorted, these 
wily enemies of the truth determined at length to corrupt and destroy, 
under the guise of friendship, a cause whose progress they could not 
impede by open enmity. They well knew, what some of the brethren 
had failed to discover, that the doctrine of Christ would be rendered 
powerless if it could only be hampered by bondage to the law. Even 
to this day the mass of religious teachers have failed to learn this 
lesson, though the experience of ages has demonstrated its truth. The 
essential issue between Paul and the Pharisees had reference to the 



* Gal. ii: 4. 



ACTS XV : 6. 



183 



perpetuation of the law of Moses in the Church of Christ, and the 
same issue has been in debate, under various aspects, from that day 
to this. Paul defeated the attempt of these Judaizers to fasten cir- 
cumcision on the Church; but subsequent Judaizers imposed infant 
immersion, and, finally, infant sprinkling, as a substitute. What the 
early Pharisees failed to accomplish in the face of apostolic opposi- 
tion, the later Pharisees did accomplish under a thin disguise. The 
unsuccessful attempt of those Pharisees to " spy out the liberty which 
the disciples had in Christ Jesus, and bring them into bondage" under 
the law, has been successfully accomplished by these, in teaching men 
that the Church of Christ originated in Abraham's family, and that 
the Jewish tribes and the Christian congregations constitute but one 
identical Church. The Roman apostasy perpetuates the pompous rit- 
ual and daily sacrifice of the old temple; religious zealots slaughter 
Canaanites in the form of modern heretics; professed Christians go 
to war under the old battle-cry of " The sword of the Lord and of 
Gideon ; " the Latter-day Saints emulate the Turks in the multiplication 
of wives ; and for all these corruptions authority is found in the laws 
and customs of ancient Israel. The intelligent reader of the New Tes- 
tament knows scarcely which of these errors is most repugnant to the 
truth; but must, like Paul, struggle with untiring energy and cease- 
less vigilance to uproot them all from the minds of men. 

6. After the Pharisees had stated their position, distinctly affirming 
that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law, it seems 
that the assembly adjourned to meet again at another hour. The 
next meeting is then announced in these words: (6) " Now the apostles 
and elders came together to consider this matter." Neither this nor the 
former meeting was composed exclusively of the apostles and elders, 
for we have seen, from verse fifth, that the messengers were received 
by the Church, and we learn, from the twenty-second verse below, 
that at this second meeting the whole Church were present. There 
had been, however, previous to either of these, a private interview 
between Paul and the chief men of the Church, for the purpose of 
coming to some distinct understanding of the subject before it was 
laid before the multitude. This we learn from Paul himself, who 
says: "1 communicated to them that gospel which I preached among 
the Gentiles, but privately to them who were of reputation, lest by any 
means I should run, or had run in vain."* This language implies 
that his course was approved by these brethren of reputation, who 
were, doubtless, the apostles and other inspired men. Their approval 
of his course shows that the objections afterward urged were preferred 
by another class of men. The public discussion was not for the pur- 
pose of bringing about an agreement among inspired men, for they 
really did not differ after the facts were stated by Paul and Barnabas. 
But it was an effort, on the part of the apostles, to bring the other 
brethren to the same conclusion in which they themselves had already 
united. 

7-11. Luke does not report all that was said, but only those speeches 
that w r ere decisive, and that brought the controversy to a close. 
Merely alluding, therefore, to the first part of the discussion, he says: 

* Gal. ii : 2. 



184 



ACTS XV: 7-12. 



(7) 11 And when there had been much discussion, Peter arose and said 
to them, Brethren, you know that, a good while ago, God made choice 
among us that the Gentiles through my mouth should hear the word of 
the gospel and believe, (8) And God, who knows the heart, bore witness 
for them, giving to them the Holy '/Spirit even as he did to its. (9) He 
made no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 
(10) Now, then, why do you put God to the proof , by putting a yoke upon 
the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to 
bear f (11) But we believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as they." The position of the 
Pharisees not only condemned the course of Paul and Barnabas, but 
also involved a censure of Peter, who was the first of all the apostles, 
as he here asserts, to preach the Word to Gentiles. When arraigned 
once before for his conduct in the case of Cornelius, he had vindicated 
his procedure by relat ag the miraculous evidences of God's will which 
had been his guide; and now, to accomplish the same end with these 
brethren, he adduces the most decisive of those miracles, the gift of 
the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles. Having given to them the 
same gift as to the apostles on Pentecost, and having imposed upon 
them none of the purifying rites of the law, but simply purifying their 
hearts by faith, he assumes that God had made no difference between 
them and the Jewish brethren. Now, to attempt to impose the law 
upon them, in the face of these evidences of God's will to the contrary, 
would be putting God to the proof of his determination to maintain 
his own authority. It would, moreover, be imposing a yoke which the 
Jews themselves had never been able to bear successfully. This yoke 
is not circumcision, for there is no difficulty in submitting to that; but 
it was the law, under whose provisions no man could live without 
incurring its condemnation. His concluding statement, that " We 
believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus, in 
the same manner as they," involves two important conclusions : First, 
That it is not through the merit of obedience to the law that we are to 
be saved, but through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ. This favor 
is extended in the pardon of sins. Second, That the Gentiles are saved 
in the same manner as the Jews. By using the plural, we believe, in- 
stead of I believe, he doubtless intended to express not only the con- 
viction of his own mind, but that of the party with whom he acted, 
including the other apostles. It was a decision of the inspired teach- 
ers against the Pharisees. 

12. This brief statement of facts had so good an effect upon the 
multitude, that Barnabas and Paul determined to follow it by a 
rehearsal of similar facts in the history of their own labors among the 
Gentiles. (12) " Then all the multitude kept silence, and listened to Bar- 
nabas and Paul relating what signs and wonders God had wrought among 
the Gentiles through them." Their remarks on this occasion were not 
a repetition of what they had said in the former meeting, when they 
had set forth "all that God had done with them," but were confined 
to the "signs and wonders" by which God had indicated his approba- 
tion of their ministry.* The reversal of the order in which Luke now 
habitually names these two brethren indicates that Barnabas, whose 
* Compare Acts xiv : 3. 



ACTS XV: 13-21. 



185 



name is first, was the first speaker. This gave Paul the closing argu- 
ment on those events. 

13-21. So far as recent indications of God's will were concerned, the 
argument was now complete and unanswerable; but the Jewish mind 
was prone to an underestimate of passing events, while they looked 
back with superior reverence to the law and the prophets. The Apos- 
tle James, knowing that they would reject all possible cotempora- 
neous evidences, if they appeared to conflict with the written word, 
determined to close up this avenue of escape from the argument 
already presented, by sustaining it with the authority of the prophets. 
(13) " And, after they were silent, James answered, saying, Brethren, 
hear me. (14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to 
take out of them a people for his name, (15) and to this agree the words 
of the prophets, as it is written, (16) After this I will return and will 
rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen dvwn. I will rebuild 
its ruins, and set it upright, (17) that the residue of men may seek after 
the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, says the 
Lord, who does all these things* (18) Known to God from eternity are 
all his works. (19) Therefore, m,y judgment is, not to trouble those of the 
Gentiles who turn to God ; (20) but to ivrite to them that they abstain from 
the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and 
from blood. (21) For Moses, for generations past, has in every city those 
who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." In this 
speech James shows that God, who knows from eternity what his own 
works would be. had foretold, through the prophet, the work which he 
was then performing through the labors of Peter, Barnabas, arid Paul. 
He had said that he would rebuild the tabernacle of David, in order 
that the residue of men, who had not known the Lord before, " even 
all the Gentiles, upon whom his name is called," should seek after 
the Lord; and now, he had, through these apostles, selected from 
among the Gentiles " a people for his name." The prophesy clearly 
covered all the ground claimed for it, and made the argument com- 
plete. 

There was room for no other conclusion than the one which James 
deduced, that they should impose on the Gentiles, so far as the class 
of restrictions under consideration were concerned, only those neces- 
sary things which were necessary independent of the Mosaic law. 
Idolatry, with all the pollutions connected with it, was known to be 
sinful before the law of Moses was given ; and so was fornication. 
The eating of blood, and, by implication, of strangled animals, whose 
blood was still in them, was forbidden to the whole world in the family 
of Noah.f In the restrictions here proposed by James, therefore, there 
is not the slightest extension of the law of Moses, but a mere enforce- 
ment upon the Gentiles of rules of conduct which had ever been bind- 
ing, and were to be perpetual. They are as binding to-day as they 
were then. To deny this would be to despise the combined authority 
of all the apostles, when enjoining upon the Gentile world, of which 
we form a part, restrictions which they pronounce necessary. One 
would be surprised that it was thought necessary to mention to Gen- 
tiles, who had turned to the Ijord, the sinfulness of fornication, did we 



*Amo8 ix : 11, quoted fFom tho Scptuagint. 

16 



■j- Gen. ix : 4. 



186 



ACTS XV: 13-21. 



not know that among heathen nations of antiquity it was deemed inno- 
cent, and even sometimes virtuous. 

The controversy now pending, in reference to the identity of the 
J ewish Church with the Church of Christ, renders it necessary that we 
should here pay some special attention to one remark made by James 
in this speech. He applies the prophesy concerning the rebuilding 
of the ''tabernacle of David" to the reception of Gentiles into the 
Church, and it is hence argued that this prophesy contemplated a 
reconstruction and extension of the dilapidated Jewish Church,, and 
not the construction of a new one. The whole argument turns upon 
the meaning of the expression " tabernacle of David." If the meta- 
phorical word tabernacle here means the Jewish Church, the argument 
would have force. But the Mosaic institution never sustained such a 
relation to David that it could, with propriety, be styled the " taberna- 
cle of David." If such had been the reference, the expression would 
undoubtedly have been, the tabernacle of Moses, which would have 
been unambiguous. But David was a king, and had a promise from 
God, that his u throne should be established forever; " * that there 
should not fail him a man on the throne of Israel, f This promise 
God confirmed with an oath, saying, " I have made a covenant with 
my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, Thy seed will I estab- 
lish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations."! According 
to the apparent meaning of this promise, it had long since failed; for 
it had been many generations since a descendant of David had occu- 
pied his throne. It was during this period, in which the royal house 
of David was in ruins, that Amos uttered the prophesy, " I will return, 
and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down ; I will 
build again the ruins thereof, and set it upright." . The term tabernacle, 
therefore, must be put for the family who dwell in the tabernacle, and 
the reconstruction of it the re-establishment of the royal dignity which 
the family had lost. Hence, when the birth of Jesus was announced 
to Mary, the angel said : " The Lord shall give to him the throne of his 
father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and 
of his kingdom there shall be no end." || Thus, the promise, when 
properly understood, is seen to refer neither to a continuous line of 
Jewish kings, descended from David, nor to a reconstruction of the 
Jewish Church, but to the perpetual reign of Jesus, the " seed of David 
according to the flesh." § When, therefore, Jesus sat down upon his 
throne in heaven, the tabernacle of David was rebuilt, and now, by 
the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, the remainder of the proph- 
esy of Amos was being fulfilled, by the extension of his kingdom 
among the Gentiles. 

The closing paragraph of this speech appears, at first glance, to 
have no immediate connection with the preceding argument. But it 
was, doubtless, designed to anticipate an objection. The Pharisees 
might object, If you thus ignore the statutes of Moses, his writings 
will fall into contempt, or be neglected by the people. No danger of 
this, says the speaker, for Moses is preached in every city, and read 
in the synagogues every Sabbath, and has been for generations past. 

* 2 Sam. vii : 16. f 1 Kings ii : 4. J Ps. lxxxix : 3, 4. 

|| Luke i : 32, 33. g Kom. i : 3. 



ACTS XV: 22-31. 



187 



22-29. The speech of James brought the discussion to a close. The 
will of God upon the subject was now so, clearly exhibited that the 
opposition was totally silenced, and it remained only to determine the 
best method of practically carrying out the proposition submitted by 
James. (22) " Then it pleased the apostle and the elders, with the whole 
Church, to send chosen men from among themselves with Paul and Bar- 
nabas to Antioch ; Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, leading men 
among the brethren, (23) writing by their hand these words : The apostles, 
and elders, and brethren, to the brethren from the Gentiles, in Antioch, 
and Syria, and Cilicia, greeting : (24) Since we have heard that certain 
persons who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting 
your souls, telling you to be circumcised and to keep the law, to whom we 
gave no such commandment, (25) it seemed good to us, being of one mind, 
to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26) men 
who have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
(27) We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who also will tell you the 
same things orally. (28) For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us, 
to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, (29) that 
you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things 
strangled, and from fornication : from which, if you keep yourselves, you 
will do well. Farewell." 

By the construction of the Greek, we learn that it was Paul and 
Barnabas, and not J udas and Silas, who are commended in this letter 
as "men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord 
Jesus." 

30, 31. The object of sending Judas and Silas with Paul and Bar- 
nabas was doubtless that they, having been entirely unconnected with 
the conversion of Gentiles, and above suspicion of undue partiality 
toward them, might use their personal influence with the Jewish 
brethren to induce them to accept the teaching of the epistle. Their 
journey, and the effect of the epistle, are thus stated: (30) " So, then, 
being sent away, they went to Antioch, and having assembled the multitude, 
they gave them the epistle. (31) When they read it, they rejoiced for the 
consolation^ The brethren residing in Antioch had not become parti- 
sans in the controversy, but had been distressed by the conflict between 
Paul and Barnabas and the Pharisees from Jerusalem, and desired 
only a satisfactory settlement of the question. The epistle, therefore, 
afforded them " consolation," and they cheerfully yielded to its require- 
ments. 

The triumph of Paul and Barnabas over their pharisaic opponents 
was most signal and complete. And it appeared all the more signal 
to the brethren in Antioch, from a fact not recorded by Luke. We 
learn, from Paul's own account of the visit to Jerusalem, that Titus, 
who was a Gentile, went with him, and that strenuous efforts were 
there made to have him circumcised; but Paul returned to Antioch, 
with Titus still uncircumcised, and with his whole course indorsed by 
the apostles, the elders, and the whole Church. This ought to have 
settled the controversy forever. 

Before dismissing the subject of this appeal to the apostles and elders 
in Jerusalem, we must notice briefly the use that is made of it by the 
advocates of representative assemblies in the Church, for judicial and 



188 



ACTS XV: 32-34. 



legislative purposes. Romanists, and the advocates of episcopacy gen- 
erally, find in the assembly in Jerusalem the first "general council" 
and have styled it "The Council of Jerusalem." The Presbyterians 
find in it the first synod; and others still appeal to it in general terms, 
as authority for assemblies of brethren to decide questions of doctrine 
and discipline. In order that it may properly be used as a precedent 
for any of these assemblies, it must be made to appear analogous to 
them in its essential features. But its essential features are: First, That 
it was occasioned by an appeal from one congregation to certain par- 
ties in one other congregation, in reference to a disputed question which 
the first felt unable to decide. /Second, That the parties to whom the 
appeal was made were inspired men, who could say of their decision, 
when made, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us ;" i. e., to the 
Holy Spirit as the divine arbiter, and to us as obedient subjects of his 
authority. It was the inspiration, and, consequently, the infallibility 
of the party appealed to, that suggested and that justified the appeal. 
In both these peculiarities all the councils and synods of Catholic 
and Protestant history are essentially deficient, for, instead of being 
called together at the request of some congregation, to decide some 
question presented, they consist of representatives from a number of 
congregations, or districts of country, assembled for the purpose of dis- 
cussing and deciding whatever questions may come up among them; 
and instead of being infallible, their decisions are nothing but the fal- 
lible opinions of uninspired men, in reference to which it would be 
the hight of profanity to say, " It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and 
us." Not till we have an assembly under the guidance of inspired 
men can we allow them to authoritatively decide religious questions 
after the precedent of this assembly in Jerusalem. All the duties, re- 
sponsibilities, and privileges of disciples have already been authorita- 
tively propounded by inspired men; and for men now to meet together 
for the authoritative decision of such questions, is to assume a prerog- 
ative that belongs exclusively to inspired apostles and prophets, and, at 
the same time, is to assume that there are deficiencies in their infalli- 
ble teachings to be supplied by uninspired men. 

In arguing thus upon the merits of all judicial and legislative assem- 
blies among the Churches, we must not be understood as condemning 
the co-operation of different congregations, or of individuals from 
them, in performing duties which are imposed by divine authority. 
The essential difference between assemblies for these two purposes is, 
that in the latter we are simply uniting our energies to perform duties 
appointed by the word of Grod; while, in the former, we undertake to 
decide what truth and duty are — a work which none but inspired men 
can perform. 

32-34. We have said above, that the purpose for which Judas and 
Silas were sent to Antioch was to enforce, by their personal influence, 
the authority of the epistle. We find this statement confirmed by the 
further account of their labors. (32) "And Judas and Silas, being 
themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and 
confirmed them. (33) And when they had remained some time, they were 
dismissed in peace from the brethren to the apostles. (34) But it pleased 
Silas to remain there." 



ACTS XV: 35. 



189 



The manner in which Luke connects the fact that these brethren 
were prophets, with the statement that they exhorted the brethren and 
confirmed them, shows that the chief work of New Testament prophets 
was not to foretell the future, but to exhort and confirm the brethren. 
He says, " being also themselves prophets, they exhorted the brethren 
and confirmed them;" which form of expression makes the fact of 
being prophets account for their exhortations. They differed from the 
Old Testament prophets only in that the latter gave their chief atten- 
tion to foretelling future events. Still, even the predictions of the old 
prophets were made to answer the purpose of exhortations to their co- 
temporaries; so that the difference between the two is very slight. 

35. The city of Antioch still continued to be a profitable field for 
apostolic labor, and the scene of interesting events. (35) " Paul and 
Barnabas also continued in Antioch, with many others, teaching and 
preaching the word of the Lord." It is during this period that the most 
judicious commentators locate the visit of Peter to Antioch, and the 
rebuke administered to him by Paul, as recorded in the second chap- 
ter of Galatians: "When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to 
the face, because he was to be blamed. For before the coming of cer- 
tain persons from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they 
came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of the circum- 
cision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, so that 
even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation."* 

It has been erroneously supposed that Peter, in this affair, acted in 
direct conflict with the epistle which he had just united in addressing to 
the Gentile brethren. The harshness of this supposition has led some 
writers to hastily conclude that his improper conduct must have oc- 
curred at a period antecedent to the issuing of that epistle. It is also 
urged in favor of an earlier date of the incident, that, if it had occurred 
subsequent to the publication of that epistle, Paul would naturally 
have appealed to it in the controversy with Peter, which he seems not 
to have done. Both of these suppositions spring from a mistake as to 
the exact fault of which Peter was guilty. He did not insist that the 
Gentiles should be circumcised, or that they should keep the law; 
which were the points discussed in the apostolic epistle. But, still ad- 
mitting the right of the uncircumcised to membership and its privi- 
leges, his fault was in refusing to eat with them in their private circles, 
although he had himself been the first to do so in the family of Cor- 
nelius, and had done so, for a time, even since he came to Antioch. In 
opposing such conduct, it would not have answered Paul's purpose to 
appeal to the epistle from Jerusalem; for it merely asserted the free- 
dom of the Gentiles from the yoke of the law, without prescribing the 
intercourse that should exist between the circumcised and uncircum- 
cised brethren. The course of argument which he did pursue was the 
only one available. He convicted Peter of inconsistency, saying, "If 
you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, why do you 
require the Gentiles to live like Jews?"f He had lived like a Gentile 
while eating with them; but now, by withdrawing from them, he was 
virtually saying to them, You must live like the Jews. This was in- 
consistent, and made it appear that either he was now a transgressor, 
* Gal. ii : 11-13. f Gal - " '> 



190 



ACTS XY: 36-39. 



while building up the Jewish prejudices, or had. formerly been, while 
seeking to break them down. "For if I build again the things which 
I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."* 

But the proof of inconsistency in an opponent never settles a ques- 
tion of truth or duty. After you have proved your opponent incon- 
sistent, you have still to prove that his present course differs from 
what truth requires, as well as from his former course. Moral incon- 
sistency convicts a man as a transgressor, but whether a transgressor 
now, or formerly, is still an open question. Paul, therefore, proceeded 
to prove Peter's present conduct improper, by stating as an undisputed 
fact, "I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I might live to 
Grod;"f that is, by the limitation which the law prescribes to itself, 
it has ceased to bind me, and I have ceased to live under it. This 
fact was decisive, because all the distinction assumed to exist between 
the circumcised and the uncircumcised was based upon the supposi- 
tion that the former, at least, were still under the law. 

This is the last passage in Acts connected with the Apostle Peter. 
Before leaving it, we must notice one fact in connection with this 
unhappy incident in his life which far outweighs the dissimulation 
rebuked by Paul. It is the manner in which he received this rebuke. 
There is not the least evidence of any resentment on his part, either 
for the rebuke itself, or for the subsequent publication of it to the 
Churches in Galatia. Most men become offended when thus rebuked 
by their equals, and would regard it as an unpardonable offense to 
give unnecessary publicity to a fault of this kind. But Paul knew 
so well the goodness of Peter's heart, that he did not hesitate to speak 
of it to the world and to future generations. That he did not over- 
estimate the meekness of Peter, is evident from the fact that the latter 
subsequently spoke most affectionately of Paul, with direct allusion 
to his epistles, and with a publicity equal to that which his own sin 
had received. % This excellence of Peter's character was known to 
other brethren besides Paul, as is evident from the freedom with which 
all the four evangelists speak of his denial of the Lord. They might 
have omitted this incident from their narratives, if they had been 
influenced by that pride and sensitiveness which prompt men to hide 
the faults of their leaders, or if they had thought that the publica- 
tion of it would give serious offense to Peter. But they knew Peter, 
and, we must presume, they knew that lie was willing for any fault 
of his, however discreditable, to be published to the world, if it would 
do any good. This is the spirit of self-sacrifice with which every 
servant of God should offer himself to the cause of Christ. 

36-41. We have lingered long upon the interval spent by Paul and 
Barnabas in Antioch. We are now to follow the former upon his 
second missionary tour. (36) " But after some days, Paul said to Bar- 
nabas, Let us return and visit our brethren in every city in which we have 
preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. (3*7) And Bar- 
nabas determined to take with them John surnamed Mark. (38) But 
Paul thought proper not to take with them him who had departed from 
them in Pamphylia, and did not go with them to the work. («9) Then 
there was a contention, so that they separated one from the other : and 
* Gal. ii : 18. f Gal. ii : 19. J 2 Peter iii; 15, 16. 



ACTS XV: 36-41. 



191 



Barnabas tooJc Mark and sailed into Cyprus. (40) But Paul chose Silas, 
and departed ', having been commended to the favor of God by the brethren ; 
(41) and went through Syria, and Cilicia, confirming the Churches." 
This journey, it should be observed, was undertaken for the prime 
purpose of revisiting the Churches where these brethren had previ- 
ously labored, and not, primarily, to preach to the heathen. This 
shows that the solicitude with which the apostles watched for the 
welfare of the congregations was not less ardent than their zeal in 
spreading a knowledge of the gospel. 

The desire of Barnabas to take John with them was, doubtless, 
prompted, in part, by partiality, arising from the relationship which 
existed between them.* John, of course, desired to go, and Barnabas 
wished to give him an opportunity to atone for his former derelic- 
tion. Paul's reason for refusing to let him go was based upon a want 
of confidence in one who would, either through fear or love of ease, 
desert him in a trying hour.f Each considered the reason for his own 
preference a good one; and as neither was willing to yield for the sake 
of remaining with the other, they ought to have parted in perfect 
peace. But some unpleasant feeling was aroused by the controversy, 
which Luke expresses by the term wapotjvcjubg, of which contention is 
rather a tame rendering, though paroxysm, which we have derived 
from it, would express too high a degree of passion. This incident 
shows that the best of men may differ about matters of expediency, 
and that, in contending for their respective conclusions, they may be 
aroused to improper feelings. But the good man, under such circum- 
stances, will always be distinguished by the readiness with which such 
feelings will be repressed, and by the absence of all subsequent malice. 
We know that Paul afterward felt very differently toward John ; for, 
during his first imprisonment at Rome, he mentions him to Philemon 
as a fellow-laborer there present; J and to the Colossians as one who 
had been a comfort to him;|| and, during his second imprisonment, he 
writes to Timothy : " Take Mark and bring him with you ; for he is 
profitable to me for the ministry."§ The slight heat engendered 
between Barnabas and Paul also subsided in a short time; for Paul 
afterward speaks of him in most friendly terms, in the First Epistle to 
the Corinthians.^ 

By returning with Mark to his native island, Barnabas revisited a 
portion of the brethren to whom he and Paul had preached, while 
Paul visited another portion of them by a different route. Thus, not- 
withstanding their disagreement and separation, they did not allow the 
good cause to suffer, but accomplished separately the whole of the 
proposed work. The separation of Barnabas from Paul is our separa- 
tion from Barnabas. His name is not mentioned again by Luke. But 
as we bid him a final farewell, the sails are spread which are to bear 
him over the sea, that he may make the islands glad with a knowl- 
edge of salvation. The further incidents of his life will yet be known 
to all who shall sit down with him in the everlasting kingdom. 

"We turn with Luke to follow the history of him who was in labors 
more abundant and in prisons more frequent than all the apostles, 



* Col. iv : 10. 
J Col. iv : 11 



+ See Com. xiii : 13. 
I 2 Tim. iv: 11. 



% Phil. 24. 

\ 1 Cor. ix : 6. 



192 



ACTS XV : 36-41; XVI: 1, 2. 



and to form a better acquaintance with his new companion. The 
statement that Paul and Silas were " commended to the favor of God 
by the brethren," does not imply, as many writers have supposed, 
that they refused thus to commend Barnabas and Mark, or that the 
brethren sided with Paul against Barnabas in their contention. It is 
sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the attention of the writer 
is fixed upon the detail of Paul's history rather than that of Barna- 
bas. No doubt the prayers of the brethren followed them both to 
their distant and dangerous fields of labor. 

By a northern route through Syria, and then a. westerly course 
through Cilicia, Paul approached the extremity of his recent tour in 
the interior of Asia Minor. He was not altogether a stranger along 
the journey, for he had spent some time in Syria and Cilicia before 
his first visit to Antioch ;* and it is most probable that he now re- 
visited, in these districts, Churches which he had planted by his own 
labors. 

XVI : 1, 2. Without giving the least detail of Paul's labors in Syria 
and Cilicia, Luke hurries us forward to his arrival in Derbe and Lystra, 
the scenes respectively of the most painful and the most consoling 
incidents which occurred on his former tour. His chief object in this 
seems to be to introduce us to a new character, destined to play an 
important part in the future history. (1) " Then he came down into 
Derbe and Lystra, and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Tim- 
othy, son of a believing Jewess, but of a Greek father; (2) vjho tvas 
well attested by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium." Not only the 
mother but also the grandmother of this disciple was a believer; for 
Paul afterward writes to him : " I call to remembrance the unfeigned 
faith that is in thee, that first dwelt in thy grandmother Lois, and in 
thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded also in thee."f From this 
it seems that both the mother and grandmother had preceded him 
into the kingdom ; for it is clearly of their faith in Christ, and not of 
their Jewish faith, that Paul here speaks. With such an example 
before him, it is not surprising that the young disciple should be found 
well attested by all the brethren who knew him. The fact that he 
was thus attested not only at I>erbe and Lystra, within the vicinity of 
his residence, but also in the more distant city of Iconium, renders it 
probable that he was already known as a public speaker. 

On the occasion of Paul's former visit to Lystra, we learned that 
while he lay dead, as was supposed, after the stoning, "the disciples 
stood around him." Timothy was doubtless in the group; for he was 
Paul's own son in the faith, J and must have been immersed previous 
to the stoning, as Paul left the city immediately after. This scene 
occurred just at that period in Timothy's religious life, the period im- 
mediately subsequent to immersion, when the soul is peculiarly suscep- 
tible to the impress of a noble example. The recesses of the heart are 
then open to their deepest depths, and a word fitly spoken, a look full 
of religious sympathy, or a noble deed, makes an impression which can 
never "be effaced. In such a frame of mind Timothy witnessed the 
stoning of Paul; || wept over his prostrate form; followed him, as if 

* Comp. Gal. i : 21, with Acts ix : 30, and xi : 25. +2 Tim i : 5. 

X 1 Tim. i : 2 I Comp. 2 Tim. iii : 10, 11. 



ACTS XVI: 3. 



193 



raised from the dead, back into the city; and saw him depart with 
heroic determination to another field of conflict in defense of the glori- 
ous gospel. It is not wonderful that a nature so full of sympathy 
with that of the heroic apostle as to extort from the latter the declara- 
tion, "I have no one like-minded with me,"* should be inspired by his 
example, and made ready to share with him the toils and sufi'erings 
of his future career. 

3. The discriminating and watchful eye of Paul soon discovered 
qualities which would render this youth a fitting companion and fel- 
low-laborer, and it was by his request that Timothy was placed in the 
position which he afterward so honorably filled. (3) " Paul wished 
him to go forth with him, and took him, and circumcised him on account 
of the Jews who were in those quarters ; for they all knew that his father 
was a Greek." 

The circumcision of Timothy is quite a remarkable event in the 
history of Paul, and presents a serious inquiry as to the consistency 
of his teaching and of his practice, in reference to this Abrahamic 
rite. It demands of us, at this place, as full consideration as our lim- 
its will admit. 

The real difficulty of the case is made apparent by putting into jux- 
taposition two of Paul's statements, and two of his deeds. He says to 
the Corinthians, " Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is 
nothing;"-}- yet to the Galatians he writes: "Behold, I, Paul, say to 
you, that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."^ 
When he was in Jerusalem upon the appeal of the Antioch Church, 
brethren urgently insisted that he should circumcise Titus, who was 
with him, but he sternly refused, and says : " 1 gave place to them by 
subjection, no, not for an hour."|| Yet we see him in the case before 
us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this " on account of 
certain Jews who were in those quarters." In order to reconcile these 
apparently conflicting facts and statements, we must have all the lead- 
ing facts concerning this rite before us. 

We observe, first, that, in the language of Jesus, circumcision "is not 
of Moses, but of the fathers."§ The obligation which the Jews were 
under to observe it was not originated by the law of Moses, or the cov- 
enant of Mount Sinai; but existed independent of that covenant and 
the law, having originated four hundred and thirty years before the 
law.^[ The connection between the law and circumcision originated 
in the fact that the law was given to a part of the circumcised descend- 
ants of Abraham. We say a part of his descendants, because circum- 
cision was enjoined upon his descendants through Ishmael, through 
the sons of Keturah, and through Esau, as well as 'upon the Jews. 
Since, then, the law did not originate the obligation to be circumcised, 
the abrogation of the law could not possibly annul that obligation. 
We shall be forced, therefore, to the conclusion, that it still continues 
since the law, unless we find it annulled by the apostles. 

Again : its perpetuity is enjoined in the law of its institution. God 
said to Abraham : " He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought 
with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be 

* Phil ii : 20. +1 Cor. vii : 19. J Gal. v : 1. 

1 Gal. ii : 3-5. \ John vii : 22. \ Gal. iii : 17. 



194 



ACTS XVI: 3. 



in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."* An everlasting covenant 
is one which continues as long as both parties to it continue to exist. 
The covenant concerning Canaan was everlasting, because it continued 
as long as the twelve tribes continued an organized people to live in it. 
The covenant of Aaron's priestly dignity was everlasting, because it 
continued in Aaron's family as long as such a priesthood had an exist- 
ence. So the covenant of circumcision must be everlasting, because it 
is to continue as long as the flesh of Abraham is perpetuated. This 
will be till the end of time; hence circumcision has not ceased, and 
can not cease, till the end of the world. This conclusion can not be 
set aside, unless we find something in the nature of gospel institutions 
inconsistent with it, or some express release of circumcised Christians 
from its continued observance. 

Is it, then, inconsistent with any gospel institution ? Pedobaptists 
assume that it was a seal of righteousness, and a rite of initiation into 
the Church; and as baptism now occupies that position, it necessarily 
supplants circumcision. It is true, that Paul says : " Abraham received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had while yet un circumcised; " but what it was to Abraham it 
never was to any of his offspring, seeing that the child eight days old 
could not possibly have any righteousness of faith while yet uncircum- 
cised, of which circumcision could be the seal. Again : it was not to 
the Jew an initiatory rite. For, first, the law of God prescribing to 
Abraham the terms of the covenant says : " The uncircumcised man- 
child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, shall be cut off 
from his people; he has broken my covenant."f Now, no man can 
be cut off from a people who is not previously of them. Regarding 
the Jewish commonwealth, therefore, as a Church, the infant of eight 
days was already in the Church by natural birth, and circumcision, 
instead of bringing him into it, was a condition of his remaining in it 
In the second place, this conclusion from the terms of the covenant is 
made indisputable by a prominent fact in Jewish history. While the 
twelve tribes were in the wilderness forty years, none of the children 
born were circumcised. The six hundred thousand men over twenty 
years of age who left Egypt all died in the wilderness, and an equal 
number were born in the same period; for the whole number of men 
at the end of the journey was the same as at the beginning.^ When 
they crossed the Jordan, therefore, there were six hundred thousand 
male Jews, -some of them forty years of age, who had not been cir- 
cumcised, yet they had been entering the Jewish Church during a 
period of forty years. After crossing the Jordan, Joshua commanded 
them to be circumcised, and it was done. || This fact not only demon- 
strates that circumcision was not to the Jews an initiatory rite, but 
throws light upon its real design. The covenant of circumcision was 
ingrafted upon the promise to Abraham of an innumerable fleshly 
offspring, to keep them a distinct people, and to enable the world to 
identify them, thereby recognizing the fulfillment of the promise, and 
also the fulfillment of various prophesies concerning them. In accord- 
ance with this design, while they were in the wilderness, in no danger 

* Gen. xvii : 9-14. + Gen. xvii : 14. 

% Hum. i : 45, 4G ; Comp. xxvi : 51, 63-65. J| Joshua v : 2-7. 



ACTS XVI: 3. 



195 



of intermingling with other nations, the institution was neglected. But, 
as soon as they enter the populous land of Canaan, where there is dan- 
ger of such intermingling, the separating mark is put upon them. 

From these two considerations, we see that there is no inconsistency 
between circumcision and baptism, even if the latter is admitted to be 
a seal of the righteousness of faith, which language is nowhere applied 
to it in the Scriptures. Neither is there inconsistency between it and 
any thing in the gospel scheme; for Paul declares : " In Jesus Christ 
neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision ; but faith 
which works by love."* Thence, he enjoins: "Is any man called, 
being circumcised, let him not be uncircumcised ; is any called in un- 
circumcision, let him not be circumcised, "f So far as faith in Christ, 
and acceptability with him are concerned, circumcision makes a man 
neither better nor worse, and is, of course, not inconsistent with the 
obedience of faith in any respect whatever. 

We next inquire, Are there any apostolic precepts which release con- 
verted Jews from the original obligation to perpetuate this rite? Paul 
does say, " If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing ;" 
and this, certainly, is a prohibition to the parties to whom it is ad- 
dressed. If it was addressed to Jewish Christians, then it is certainly 
wrong for the institution to be perpetuated among them. But neither 
Paul nor any of the apostles so understood it. That Paul did not is 
proved by the fact that he circumcised Timothy; and that the other 
apostles did not, is proved conclusively by the conference which took 
place in Jerusalem upon Paul's last visit to that place. James says 
to him: "You see, brother, how many thousands of the Jews there 
are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are 
informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gen- 
tiles to forsake Mosas, saying that they ought not to circumcise their 
children, neither to walk after the customs. Do this, therefore, that 
we say to you. We have four men who have a vow on them. Take 
them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses, in order 
that they may shave their heads, and all may know that the things 
of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you 
yourself walk orderly, and keep the law."J This speech shows that 
James considered it slanderous to say that Paul taught the Jews not 
to circumcise their children; and Paul's ready consent to the proposi- 
tion made to him shows that he agreed with James. Yet this occurred 
after he had written the epistle to the Galatians, in which he says, " If 
you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." There could 
not be clearer proof that this remark was not intended for Jewish 
Christians. 

Even James, in the speech from which we have just quoted, makes 
a distinction, in reference to this rite, between the Jewish and the Gen- 
tile Christians. He says: "Concerning the Gentiles*who believe, we 
have written, having decided that they observe no such thing ; save, 
only, that they keep themselves from idols, and from blood, and from, 
things strangled, and from fornication." || This remark refers to the 
decree issued by the apostles from Jerusalem, which Paul was carry- 
ing with him at the time that he circumcised Timothy. § It should 
* Gal. v : 6. f 1 Cor - vii : 18 « t Acta xxi : 20-24. J Acts xxi : 25. I Acts xvi : 4. 



196 



ACTS XVI: 3. 



be observed, that there never did arise among the disciples any differ- 
ence of opinion as to the propriety of circumcising Jews. This was 
granted by all. But the controversy had exclusive reference to the 
Gentiles; and the fact that the Judaizers based their plea for circum- 
cising Gentiles upon the continued validity of the rite among the Jews, 
is one of the strongest proofs that all the disciples considered it perpet- 
ual. If Paul, in disputing with them, could have said, that, by the 
introduction of the gospel, circumcision was abolished even among 
the Jews, he would have subverted, at once, the very foundation of 
their argument. But this fundamental assumption was admitted and 
acted upon by Paul himself, and no inspired man ever called it in 
question. 

That it was the Gentiles alone who were forbidden to be circumcised, 
is further evident from the context of this prohibition in Galatians. 
This epistle was addressed to Gentiles, as is evident from the .remark 
in the fourth chapter, " Howbeit, then, when you knew not God, you 
did service to them who by nature are no gods?" The circumcision 
of the Gentiles is not, however, considered apart from the purpose for 
which it was done. It is often the purpose alone which gives moral 
character to an action ; and in this case it gave to this action its chief 
moral turpitude. The purpose for which the Judaizers desired the Gen- 
tiles to be circumcised was that they might be brought under the law 
as a means of justification. Hence Paul adds to the declaration we 
are considering: "I testify again to every man who submits to circum- 
cision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. You have ceased from 
Christ, whoever of you are being justified by the law, you have fallen 
away from favor."' 55 ' This can not refer to Jews, for it would make 
Paul himself and all the Jewish Christians " debtors to do the whole 
law;" a conclusion in direct conflict with one oX the main arguments 
of this epistle. f It must, then, refer to Gentiles who were considering 
the propriety of circumcision as a condition of justification by the law. 

We can now account for Paul's stern refusal to circumcise Titus. 
He was a Gentile, and could not with propriety be circumcised unless 
he desired to unite himself nationally with the J ewish people. But if, 
with Paul's consent, he should do this, his example would be used as 
a precedent to justify all other Gentile disciples in doing the same; and 
thus, in a short time, circumcision would cease to be a distinguishing 
mark of the. offspring of Abraham, and the original design of the rite 
would be subverted. Moreover, to have circumcised him under the 
demand that was made by the Pharisees, would have been a virtual 
admission that it was necessary to justification, which could not be 
admitted without abandoning the liberty of Christ for the bondage of 
the law. 

The case of Timothy was quite different. He was a half-blood Jew, 
and therefore belonged, in part, to the family of Abraham. He could 
be circumcised, not on the ground of its being necessary as a part of a 
system of justification by law, but because he was an heir of the ever- 
lasting covenant with Abraham. This, however, was not the chief 
reason for which Paul circumcised him, for Luke says it was " on ac- 
count of the Jews who dwelt in those quarters ; for they all knew that 
* Gal. v : 3, 4. t Gal. iii: 23-25. 



ACTS XVI: 3. 



197 



his father was a Greek." In this reason there are two considerations 
combined, the latter qualifying the former. The fact that his father 
was known to be a Greek is given to account for the fact that Paul 
yielded to the prejudices of the Jews. If his father and mother both 
had been Jews, Paul might have acted from the binding nature of the 
Abrahamic covenant. Or if both had been Greeks, he would have dis- 
regarded the clamor of the Jews, as he had done in the case of Titus. 
But the mixed parentage of Timothy made his case a peculiar one. 
The marriage of his mother to a Greek was contrary to the law of 
Moses. * Whether the offspring from such a marriage should be cir- 
cumcised, or not, the law did not determine. The Jewish rabbis 
taught that the mother should not circumcise the child without the 
consent of the father, f which was to admit that his circumcision was 
not obligatory. Paul did not, then, feel bound by the Abrahamic cov- 
enant to circumcise him, but did so to conciliate the "Jews who dwelt 
in those quarters," who had, doubtless, already objected to the promi- 
nent position assigned to one in Timothy's anomalous condition. It 
was, as all the commentators agree, a matter of expediency; but not, 
as they also contend, because it was indifferent whether any one were 
circumcised or not, but because it was indifferent whether one like 
Timothy were circumcised or not. It was an expediency that applied 
only to the case of a half-blood Jew with a Greek father; and it would, 
therefore, be most unwarrantable to extend it to the case of full-blooded 
Jews. 

The remark of Paul that " Circumcision is nothing, and uncircum- 
cision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God,"! * s readily 
explained in the light of the above remarks, and of its own context. 
It is immediately preceded by these words : " Is any man called being 
circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in un- 
circumcision, let him not be circumcised." And it is immediately fol- 
lowed by these words : " Let every man abide in the calling wherein he 
is called." So far, then, is this text from making it indifferent whether 
a Christian become circumcised or not, that it positively forbids those 
who had been in uncircumcision before they were called, to be circum- 
cised; while it equally forbids the other party to render themselves 
uncircumcised ; which expression means to act as if they were uncir- 
cumcised by neglecting it in reference to their children. For to be- 
come uncircumcised literally is impossible. That circumcision is 
nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, means, therefore, simply that it 
is indifferent whether a man had been, before he was called, a Jew or 
a Gentile ; but it is far from indicating that it is innocent in a Jew to 
neglect this rite, or in a Gentile to observe it. 

If we have properly collated the apostolic teaching on this sub- 
ject, the conclusion of the whole matter is this: that Christian Jews, 
Ishmaelites, or Edomites, are under the same obligation to circum- 
cise their children that the twelve tribes were in Egypt, and that the 
descendants of Ishmael and Esau were during the period of the law of 
Moses. This being so, the pedobaptist conceit that baptism has taken 
the place of circumcision is shown to be absurd, by the fact that cir- 
cumcision still occupies its own place. It is undeniable that during 
* Ex. xxxiv : 16 ; Deut. vii : 3. f See Bloc-infield, in loco. % 1 Cor. xii : 18-20. 



198 



ACTS XVI: 4-8. 



the whole apostolic period Jewish disciples observed both baptism and 
circumcision, and as both these could not occupy the same place at 
the same time, their proper places must be different. According to 
apostolic precedent, both should still continue among the Jews; nei 
ther one taking the place of the other, but one serving as a token of 
the fleshly covenant with Abraham, the other as an institution of the 
new covenant, and a condition, both to Jew and Gentile, of the remis- 
sion of sins. 

4, 5. After so long delay upon the circumcision of Timothy, we are 
prepared to start forward again with the apostles, cheered as they were 
by this valuable addition to their company. (4) "And as they passed 
through the cities they delivered to them to observe the decrees which had 
been adjudged by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. (5) And the 
Churches were confirmed in the faith, and were daily increasing in num- 
ber." These decrees were everywhere needed, in order to unite 
in harmonious fellowship the Jewish and Gentile converts. Pre- 
sented by Paul, who had been sent to Jerusalem for them, and by 
Silas, who had been sent out with high commendation by the apos- 
tles, to bear them to the Gentiles, they came with their full force to 
the ears of the brethren, and produced the happiest effects. The 
peace and harmony which they produced helped to confirm the breth- 
ren in the faith, and the daily increase in number was the result of 
this happy condition of the Churches. 

6-8. The neighboring cities of Derbe and Lystra, where Paul was 
joined by Timothy, constituted the limit of his former tour with Bar- 
nabas into this region of country. He makes them now the start- 
ing point for an advance still further into the interior, and to the 
western extremity of Asia Minor. (6) u Now when they had gone through 
Phrygia and the district of Galatia, being forbidden by the Holy /Spirit 
to speak the word in Asia, (7) they went to Mysia, and attempted to go 
on through Bythinia, and the Spirit did not permit them. (8) So 
passing by Mysia they went down to Troas." 

From this hurried sketch of the tour through Phrygia and Galatia, 
it might be inferred that nothing of special interest occurred during its 
progress. But we learn from Paul himself that it was far otherwise in 
Galatia. In his epistle to the Churches there, he lifts the vail of ob- 
scurity thrown over this part of his life, and brings to light one of the 
most touching incidents in his eventful career. More than one con- 
gregation sprang up under his personal labors there,* who owed their 
knowledge of salvation to an afflicting providence affecting himself. 
He writes to them: "You know that on account of infirmity of the 
flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first."f This statement 
does not mean merely that he was suffering in the flesh at the time; 
but the expression 6t' aodhuav indicates that the infirmity was the cause 
which led to his preaching to them. The infirmity was evidently that 
" thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him," which he 
had prayed in vain to the Lord to take from him. X For he says to 
them: "My temptation which was in my flesh you despised not, nor 
rejected, but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus."|| 
It is probable that he had intended to pass through this region with- 
* Gal. i : G ; iv : 19. f ft : 13. J 2 Cor. xii : 7. B Gal. iv : 14. 



ACTS XVI: 9, 10. 



199 



out stopping, but some unusual violence of the humiliating and irri- 
tating malady compelled him to forego the more distant journey, and 
make some stay where the Word was so gladly received by these breth- 
ren. Though Paul felt that strangers like these would be likely to 
despise him and reject him, on perceiving the malady with which he 
was afflicted, yet this people listened to his annunciation of eternal 
truth as if they heard an angel of God, or Jesus Christ himself. His 
distress of mind and weakness of body were calculated to give a mel- 
lower tone to his preaching, and to awaken a livelier sympathy in 
truly generous hearts, and such was the effect on them. He says: " I 
bear you witness, that if it had been possible, you would have plucked 
out your own eyes and have given them to me."* Thus, out of the 
most unpropitious hour in which this faithful apostle ever introduced 
the gospel to a strange community, the kind providence of God brought 
forth the sweetest fruits of all his labors; for there are no other 
Churches of whose fondness for him he speaks in terms so touching. 
This serves to illustrate the meaning of the Lord's answer, when Paul 
prayed that the thorn might depart from his flesh: " My favor is suffi- 
cient for you;' for my strength is made perfect in weakness."! His 
weakest hour, wherein he expected to be despised and rejected, he 
found the strongest for the cause he was pleading, and the most sooth- 
ing to his own troubled spirit. It was experience like this which en- 
abled him, in later years, to exclaim, " Most gladly, therefore, will I 
rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon 
me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in neces- 
sities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake; for when I am 
weak, then am I strong."J 

Paul's own judgment seems to have been much at fault, during this 
period, in reference to the choice of a field of labor. Contrary to hia 
purpose, he had been delayed in Galatia "on account of infirmity 
of flesh ; " and then, intending to enter the province of Asia, of which 
Ephesus was the capital, he was " forbidden by the Holy Spirit to 
speak the Word there." Finally they attempted to go into Bythinia, 
" and the Holy Spirit did not permit them." Feeling his way around 
the forbidden territory, he finally went down to Troas, on the shore of 
the iEgean Sea. 

9, 10. Here he learns the object which the Spirit had in view, while 
turning him aside from one after another of the fields which he him- 
self had chosen. (9) " Then a vision appeared to Paul in the night. 
There stood a man of Macedonia, entreating him, and saying, Come over 
into Macedonia and help us. (10) And when he saw the vision, we im- 
mediately sought to go forth into Macedonia, inferring that the Lord had 
called us to preach the gospel to them." 

This overruling of Paul's purpose, coupled with the absence of it at 
other times, indicates something of the method by which the journey- 
ings of inspired men were directed. While their own judgment led to 
a judicious choice, it was permitted to guide them; but when it failed, 
as was likely to be the case, through their ignorance of the compara- 
tive accessibility of different communities, or the circumstances of in- 
dividuals, they were overruled by some controlling providence, like 
* Gal. iv : 15. t 2 Cor. xii : 9. % 2 Cor. 9, 10, 



200 



ACTS XVI: 11, 12. 



Paul in Galatia; directed by angels, like Philip in Samaria; or by the 
Spirit, like Peter in Joppa; restrained from some purpose, like Paul 
and Silas when attempting to enter Asia and Bythinia; or called away 
across the sea, as he was now, by a vision at night. We will yet see 
that, as in the cases of Philip and of Peter, the prayers of individuals 
ready to hear the gospel were connected with the divine interference 
by which Paul and Silas were now being directed.* 

Preachers of the present day have no authoritative visions by night 
to guide them, and the supposition indulged by some, that they are at 
times prompted by the Spirit as Paul was, is nothing more than the 
conceit of an enthusiast, while it is nothing less than a claim to in- 
spiration. But Paul was often guided merely by the indications of 
Providence, and so may it be with us. If we are attentive to these in- 
dications, we shall be under the guidance of that same All-seeing Eye 
which chose the steps of Paul. If the way of our choosing is entirely 
Dlocked up, at times, or some stern necessity turns us aside from a set- 
tled purpose, we may regard it as but the firmer pressure of that hand 
which leads us, for the most part, unseen and unfelt. 

11, 12. An opportunity was offered without delay, for the apostolic 
company to make the contemplated voyage to Macedonia, (i 1) "There- 
fore, setting sail from Troas, we ran by a straight course to Samothrace, 
and the next day to Neapolis ; (12) and thence to Philippi, which is the 
first city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony. And we abode in that 
city some days." 

Samothrace is an island in the Archipelago, about midway between 
Troas and Neapolis. Neapolis was a seaport of Macedonia, and the 
landing place for Philippi. The remark that they sailed to Samo- 
thrace, and the next day to Neapolis, shows that they spent the night 
at Samothrace, which accords with the custom of ancient navigators, 
who generally cast anchor at night, during coasting voyages, unless 
the stars were out. This voyage occupied a part of two days. 

Philippi was not the chief city of that part of Macedonia, as ren- 
dered in the common version, but the first city; by which is meant, 
either that it was the first which Paul visited, or the first in point of 
celebrity. I think the latter is the real idea ; for it is obvious from the 
history that this was the first city Paul visited, and of this the reader 
need not be informed. But it was the first city of that region in point 
of celebrity, because it was the scene of the great battle in which 
Brutus and Cassius were defeated by Marc Antony. Thessalonica 
was then, and is yet, the chief city of Macedonia. 

The observant reader will here notice a change in the style of the 
narrative, which indicates the presence of the writer among the com- 
panions of Paul. Hitherto he had spoken of them only in the third 
person; but when about to leave Troas, he uses the first person plural, 
saying, " we sought to go forth into Macedonia," and u we ran to Samo- 
thrace," etc. It is only by such a change in the pronoun employed, 
from the third to the first person, and from the first to the third, that 
we can detect the presence or absence of Luke. From this indication 
we conclude that he first joined the company in the interior of Asia 
Minor, just previous to entering the city of Troas. The company with 
* See Com., below, verses 13, 14. 



ACTS XVI: 13-15. 



201 



whom we are now traveling is composed of Paul and Silas, Timothy 
and Luke. 

13-15. Upon entering this strange city, the first on the continent of 
Europe visited by an apostle, Paul and his companions must have 
looked around them with great anxiety for some opportunity to open 
their message to the people. The prospects were sufficiently forbid- 
ding. Theyknew not the face of a human being; and there was not 
even a Jewish synagogue into which they might enter with the hope 
of being invited to speak " a word of exhortation to the people."* By 
some means, however, they learned that on the bank of the river 
Ganges, which flowed by the city, some Jewish women were in the 
habit of congregating on the Sabbath-day, for prayer. Thither the 
apostles directed their steps, determined that here should be the begin- 
ning of their labors in Philippi. (13) "And on the Sabbath-day we 
went out of the city by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made } 
and sat down, and spoke to the women who had collected there. And a 
certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, 
who worshiped God, was listening ; whose heart the Lord opened, so that 
she attended, to the things spoken by Paul. (15) And when she was im- 
mersed, and her house, she entreated us, saying, If you have judged me to 
be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and remain there. And she 
constrained us." 

With Bloomfield, I reject the criticism of most recent commentators, 
who render the second clause of verse 13, " where was wont to be a place 
of prayer." \ Besides the reasons suggested by this learned author, I 
would observe, first, that the term irpooevxv is nowhere else in the New 
Testament used in the sense of a place of prayer, but always means 
prayer. Nothing but a contextual necessity, therefore, would justify 
a different rendering here. Again, the expression evo/nl^sro eivai means 
was accustomed to be, and it is never said of a place, or building, that it 
is accustomed to be where it is. 

We now see one reason for that singular prohibition which had been 
steadily turning Paul aside from the fields which he had preferred, 
until he reached the sea-shore; and of that vision which had called 
him into Europe. These women had been wont to repair to this river- 
bank for prayer. God had heard their prayers, as in the case of Cor- 
nelius, and he was bringing to them the preacher through whose words 
they might obtain faith in Christ, and learn the way of salvation. 
Long before either they or Paul knew anything of it, God was direct- 
ing the steps of the latter, and timing the motion of the winds at sea, 
with reference to that weekly meeting on the river's bank, as he had 
once done the flight of an angel and the steps of Philip with reference 
to the eunuch's chariot. Now, as in those two cases, he has brought 
the parties face to face. He answers the prayers of the unconverted, 
not by an enlightening influence of the Spirit in their hearts, but by 
providentially bringing to them a preacher of the gospel who knows 
the way of salvation. 

The statement that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she 
attended to the things spoken by Paul, is generally assumed by the 
commentators as a certain proof that an immediate influence of the 



* Acta xiii : 15. 



f Hackett, and authors referred to by him. 



202 



ACTS XVI : 13-15. 



SpiriJ was exerted on her heart, in order that she should listen favora- 
bly to the truth. Their interpretation of the words is expressed in the 
most orthodox style by Bloomfield, thus: "The opening in question 
was effected by the grace of God, working by his Spirit with the con- 
current good dispositions of Lydia." Dr. Hackett says her heart was 
"enlightened, impressed by his Spirit, and so prepared to receive the 
truth." Whether this is the true interpretation or not, may be de- 
termined by a careful examination of all the facts in the case. 

First : The term open is evidently used metaphorically, but in a sense 
not at all obscure. To open the mind is to expand it to broader or 
more just conceptions of a subject. To open the heart is to awaken 
within it more generous impulses. What exact impulse is awakened, 
in a given case, is to be determined by the context. 

Second: The impulse awakened in Lydia's heart was not such a 
disposition that she listened favorably to what Paul said, but, "that 
she attended to things" which he spoke. The facts, in the order in 
which they are stated, are as follows: 1st, "We spoke to the women." 
2d. Lydia "was listening." 3d. God opened her heart. 4th. She 
attended to the things spoken. The fourth fact is declared to be the re- 
sult of the third. It was after she " was listening " that God opened her 
heart, and after her heart was opened, and because of this opening, that 
she attended to what she had heard. What the exact result was, then, 
is to be determined by the meaning of the word " attended." The term 
attend sometimes means to concentrate the mind upon a subject, and 
sometimes to practically observe what we are taught. The Greek term 
irpoaexo), here employed, has a similar usage. It is used in the former 
sense, in Acts viii: 6, where it is said the people " attended to the things 
spoken by Philip, in hearing and seeing the miracles which he wrought." 
It is used in the latter sense in 1 Tim. iv: 13, where Paul says, "Till I 
come, attend to reading, to exhortation, to teaching;" and in Heb. vii> 
13, where to attend to the altar means to do the service at the altar. 
That the latter is the meaning in the case before us is clearly proved 
by the fact that she had already listened to what Paul spoke, or given 
mental attention to it, before God opened her heart so that she attended 
to the things she had heard. Now, in hearing the gospel, she learned 
that there were certain things which she was required to attend to, 
which were, to believe, to repent, and to be immersed. To attend to 
the things she heard, then, was to do these things. That immersion 
was included in the things which Luke refers to by this term is evi- 
dent from the manner in which he introduces that circumstance. He 
says, "And when she was immersed," etc., as if her immersion was 
already implied in the preceding remark. If such was not his mean- 
ing, he would not have used the adverb when, but would simply have 
stated, as an additional fact, that she was immersed. 

Having the facts of the case now before us, we inquire whether it is 
necessary to admit an immediate influence of the Spirit, in order to 
account for the opening of her heart. We must bear in mind, while 
prosecuting this inquiry, that the opening in question was such a 
change in her heart as to induce her to believe the gospel, to repent 
of her sins, and to be immersed, thereby devoting her life to the service 
of Christ. Her heart had been contracted by the narrowness of Jewish 



ACTS XVI : 13-15. 



203 



prejudices, which were obstacles, in some degree, to the reception of 
the gospel; but she was a "worshiper of God," which inclined her to 
do whatever she might learn to be the will of God. In seeking to ac- 
count for the change effected, we must also bear in mind the well- 
settled philosophical principle, that when an effect can be accounted 
for by causes which are known to be present, it is illogical to assume 
a cause which is not known to be present. Now, in Lydia's case, it is 
not asserted that an immediate action of the Spirit took place in her 
heart; neither can it be known that such a cause was present, unless 
this is the only cause which could produce the effect. But it is known 
that all the power which can be exerted through the words of an in- 
spired apostle preaching the gospel of J esus Christ, was present. And 
it can not be denied, that when the gospel, thus presented, is listened 
to by one who is already a sincere worshiper of God, as Lydia was, the 
heart may be so expanded by it from the narrowness of Jewish preju- 
dice as to admit of faith, repentance, and obedience. The assumption, 
therefore, that her heart was opened by an abstract influence of the 
Spirit, is entirely gratuitous and illogical, while the real cause is patent 
upon the face of the narrative in the preaching done by Paul. 

If it be objected to this conclusion, that it is said God opened her 
heart, and not Paul, we answer, that God by his Spirit was the real 
agent of all that was effected through the words of Paul. For it was 
the Spirit in Paul who spoke to Lydia, and it was the fact that the 
Holy Spirit was in him which compelled her to believe what he might 
say, and gave his words all their power. Hence, so far is this state- 
ment of the text from bemg inconsistent with our conclusion, that the 
opening of her heart through Paul's words is the clearest proof that 
it was effected by the Holy Spirit as the prime agent. 

If, in conclusion of this inquiry, we compare Lydia's case with that 
of the eunuch, or of Cornelius, who were in similar states of mind pre- 
vious to conversion, and needed a similar opening of the heart, we find 
that it was effected in the same way, through the power of miracu- 
lously attested truth, and that the only difference is in the phraseology 
in which Luke chooses to describe it. If, from these facts, we attempt 
a general conclusion, it is, that when any narrowness of heart, pro- 
duced by improper education, or otherwise, stands in the way of salva- 
tion, the Lord removes it, and opens the heart, by the expanding and 
ennobling influence of his truth. This is true of the. saint as well as 
the sinner, as is well illustrated by the case of Peter and the other 
apostles in connection with the family of Cornelius.* 

The statement that Lydia's household were immersed with her has 
been taken by nearly all pedobaptist writers as presumptive evidence 
<^in favor of infant baptism. Olshausen, however, while affirming that 
"the propriety of infant baptism is undoubted," has the candor to 
admit that "It is highly improbable that the phrase her household 
should be understood as including infant children." He also affirms 
that " There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for 
the baptism of children in the age of the apostles, nor can the neces- 
sity of it be deduced from the nature of baptism. "f Dr. Alexander 
also remarks that "The real strength of the argument lies not in any 
* Seo Com. x : 9-16, et seq., and xi : 18. f Com. in loco. 



ACTS XVI: 13-15. 



one case, but in the repeated mention of whole households as bap- 
tized." But Dr. Barnes states the argument in the more popular 
style, thus : u The case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof 
that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. For, (1) 
Her believing is particularly mentioned. (2) It is not intimated that 
they believed. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that they did 
not. (3) It is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she 
believed." 

Dr. Alexander's statement of the argument is that generally em- 
ployed by debatants; that of Dr. Barnes the one most common among 
preachers and teachers who have no opponent before them. In refer 
ence to the former it is sufficient to say, that " the repeated mention of 
whole households as baptized" affords not the slightest evidence in 
favor of infant baptism, unless it can be proved that in at least one of 
these households there were infants. It there were infants in one, 
this would establish the presumption that there might be in some 
others. But until there is proof that there were infants in some of 
them, it may be inferred that the absence of infants was the very cir- 
cumstance which led to the immersion of the whole family. Indeed, 
a fair induction of such cases fully justifies this inference in reference 
to Lydia's case. There is positive proof that there were no infants 
in any other family whose immersion is mentioned in the New Test- 
ament. There were none in the household of Cornelius; for they all 
spoke in tongues, and believed. There were none in that of the jailer; 
for they all believed and rejoiced in the Lord. None in the houshold 
of Stephanas; for they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
saints."* Now, inasmuch as one of the peculiarities of all households 
who were immersed, of whom we know the facts, was the absence of 
infants, we are justified in the conclusion, no evidence to the contrary 
appearing, that this was also a peculiarity of Lydia's household. The 
argument, therefore, as stated by Dr. Alexander, is not only inconclu- 
sive, but, when properly viewed, establishes a presumption quite the 
reverse. 

The argument, as stated by Dr. Barnes, is based entirely upon the" 
silence of the Scriptures. He says: " Her believing is particularly 
mentioned;" but "it is not intimated that they believed. On the 
contrary, it is strongly implied that they did not." Now, if the mere 
silence of Luke in reference to their faith implies strongly that they 
did not believe, his silence in reference to Lydia's repeyxtance implies 
as strongly that she did not repent. In some cases of conversion, the 
repentance of the parties is " particularly mentioned." " It is not inti- 
mated " that Lydia repented; therefore, says the logic of Dr. Barnes, 
"there is a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of" 
baptism without repentance. If men are allowed thus to prove what 
is Scripture doctrine, by what the Scriptures do not mention, there is no 
end to the doctrines and practices which the Bible may be made to 
defend. If Dr. Barnes were compelled to meet the argument in refer- 
ence to Lydia's repentance, he would do it very easily, and, in so 
doing, would refute his own in reference to the baptism of her chil- 
dren. He would show that we know that Lydia repented, because 

* Compare 1 Cor. i : 1G and xvi : 15. 



ACTS XVI: 16-18 



205 



none but those who repented were admitted to baptism on other occa- 
sions. Just so, we know that all baptized on this occasion believed, 
because none but believers were baptized on other occasions. Not 
till he can prove, from other statements of the Scriptures, that persons 
were baptized by the apostles without faith, can he establish the pre- 
sumption that these parties were not believers, simply because their 
faith is not mentioned. 

Dr. Barnes concludes his note on this case, by saying, " It is just 
Buch an account as would now be given of a household or family 
that were baptized on the faith of the parent." This is true. But it 
is equally true, that it is just such an account as would now be given 
of a household or family that were baptized without an infant among 
them. The presence, therefore, of one or more infants, which is es- 
sential to the argument, remains absolutely without proof. 

The mere absence of proof is not the worst feature of the pedobap- 
tist assumptions in this case. For the assumption that infants were 
here baptized depends upon five other assumptions, the falsity of either 
of which would vitiate the whole argument. It is assumed, First, That^> 
some of the household were baptized without faith. Second,. That 
Lydia was, or had been, a married woman. Third, That she had 
children. Fourth, That one or more of her children were infants. 
Fifth, That her infant children were so young as to necessarily be 
brought with her from Thyatira to Philippi. Now, so long as it re- 
mains possible that all the parties baptized were believers ; or that 
Lydia was a maiden ; or that she was a married woman or widow 
without children ; or that her children were of a responsible age ; or 
that her younger children were left at home in Thyatira when she 
came to Philippi to sell her purple cloths; so long as any one of these 
hypotheses can possibly be true, so long will it be impossible to prove 
an instance of infant baptism in her household. 

One more suggestion is necessary to a full statement of the argu- 
ment in this case. When Lydia invited Paul's company to lodge in 
her house, they were backward about complying, as is evident from 
the remark that "she constrained us." Now there can be no probable 
reason assigned for this reluctance, but the fact that it was her house, 
and the brethren felt it a matter of delicacy to be the guests of a 
woman. To the full extent of the probability of this supposition, 
which is hightened by the fact that she calls the house her own, is it 
probable that she was an unmarried woman, and, therefore, improbable 
that she had infant children. Thus we find that all the known facts 
in the case are adverse to the argument in favor of infant baptism. 

16-18. We are next introduced to an incident which led to a decided 
change in the fortunes of Paul and Silas. (16) 11 And it came to pass, 
as we were going to prayer, there met us a certain female servant, having 
a spirit of divination, who brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. 

(17) The same followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, These men 
are servants of the most high God, who show us the way of salvation. 

(18) She did this for many days. But Paul, being much grieved, turned 
and said to the spirit, I command you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to 
come out of her. And he came out the sam,e hour." ^Demons exhibited 
a knowledge of the person of Jesus, and the mission of himself and 



206 



ACTS XVI : 19, 20. 



the apostles, which seems not to have been derived from preaching. 
This was a superhuman knowledge. But there is no evidence known 
to me that they could foretell future events, though it was believed by 
the heathen generally that they could. It was the prevalent confi- 
dence in the' vaticinations of persons possessed by them that enabled 
this girl to bring her owners much gain. 

If Paul had reasoned as many do at the present day, he would have 
been glad that this girl followed him with such a proclamation. It 
was the very thing of which he was trying to convince the people of 
Philippi, who already had confidence in the demoniac. Why, then, 
was he not rejoiced at so powerful co-operation, instead of being 
grieved, and shutting the mouth of an apparent friend? It must be 
because he saw the matter in a far different light from that in which 
it appears to those advocates of "spirit rappings," who exult in them 
as affording strong confirmation to the gospel. 

The course pursued by Paul was the same with that of Jesus, who 
invariably stopped the mouths of demons when they attempted to tes- 
tify to his claims. The propriety of this course will be apparent upon 
observing: First, That to have permitted demons to testify for the truth 
would have convinced the people that there was an alliance between 
them and the preachers. /Second, This supposed alliance would have 
caused all the good repute of Jesus and the apostles to reflect upon 
the demons, and all the evil repute of demons to- reflect upon them. 
It was an ingenious effort of the devil to ally himself with Jesus Christ, 
in order the more effectually to defeat his purposes. If Christ and the 
apostles had given countenance to demons while telling the truth, 
they could have used their indorsement to gain credence when telling 
a lie; and thus, believers would have been left to the mercy of seducing 
spirits, fulfilling, with the apparent sanction of Christ, the prophesy 
of Paul that, "In the latter times men shall depart from the faith, giv- 
ing heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, speaking lies in 
disguise, having the conscience seared with a hot iron."* To guard 
against this result, it was necessary to exorcise all demons who ven- 
tured to speak in favor of the truth. 

In the present instance, Paul could not pursue the settled course of 
the apostles, without greatly depreciating the value of the slave; and 
doubtless it was an extreme reluctance to interference with the rights 
of property which induced him to submit to the annoyance for so 
many days. At length, seeing no other means of relief, he cast the 
demon out, and, in doing so, framed the exorcising sentence in such a 
way as to indicate an antagonism between the demon and Jesus Christ; 
saying, " In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of 
her." The immediate obedience of the spirit demonstrated the au- 
thority of the name by which Paul spoke, and thus the very attempt 
of the devil to gain an apparent alliance with Jesus through this 
demon was made the occasion of demonstrating the divine power of 
the latter. 

19-21. (19) "Then her masters, seeing that the hope of their gain was 
gone, seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market-place to 
the rulers, (20) and leading him forward to the magistrates, they said t 
4 1 Tim. iv : 1, 2. 



ACTS XVI: 21-25. 



207 



These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, (21) and are an- 
nouncing customs which it is unlawful for us, being Romans, to receive or 
to observe." In this accusation, the real cause of complaint was con- 
cealed, for several reasons: First, The disinterested multitude would 
naturally sympathize with the girl who had been restored to her mind, 
rather than with the masters who had made her misfortune a source 
of profit. Second, To have made prominent the fact that Paul, by a 
word, had expelled the demon, would have made an impression favor- 
able to him and his cause. But the Jews and their religion were par- 
ticularly obnoxious to the Romans, and hence, when the accusation 
was made by men of wealth and influence, that these men, " being 
Jews," were introducing customs contrary to the religion and laws of 
Rome, it was easy to excite the populace against them. 

22-24. (22) "And the multitude rose up against them, and the magis- 
trates, having torn off their garments, commanded to beat them with rods. 
(23) And having laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, 
charging the jailer to keep them safely ; (24) ivho, having received such 
a commandment, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet 
fast in the stocks." It appears that the magistrates gave them no op- 
portunity to defend themselves, but simply yielded to the clamor of the 
multitude, in utter disregard of all the forms of justice. It was that 
same miserable truckling to the passions of a mob, whom they ought 
to have ruled into sobriety and reason, which has stamped with in- 
famy the name of Pontius Pilate. 

25. The condition of the two brethren, as night drew on, was mis- 
erable to a degree scarcely conceivable. Besides the physical pain of 
sitting in a dark dungeon, with £heir backs bleeding from the scourge, 
and their feet fastened in the stocks to prevent even the relief which a 
change of position might afford, their minds were racked with a sense 
of the deep injustice done them; with the reflection that such was the 
return they met at the hands of men for whom they had sacrificed 
their all on earth, and their present reward for faithful service of the 
Lord; and with the most mournful anticipations of their future fate. 
Most men, under such circumstances, would have been wild with rage 
against their persecutors, unconcerned for the fate of an unfriendly 
world, and full of doubts as to the protecting favor of God. But in 
the darkest and bitterest hour of their sufferings, these faithful disci- 
ples brought forth the richest fruits of their faith and piety. (25) u But 
at midnight Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God, and the pris- 
oners heard them." Men do not pray when they are enraged, nor when 
they are hopeless. The soul must recover from the turmoil of violent 
passion, before it can offer thoughtful prayer. But still greater com- 
posure is necessary to induce a disposition to engage in singing. One 
in deep distress may be soothed by the music of other voices, but is 
not inclined to join in the song himself. That Paul and Silas prayed 
at midnight is the clearest evidence that the tempest of their feelings, 
which must, at the whipping-post, and when first thrust within the 
dungeon and fastened in the stocks, have driven away all sober thought, 
and smothered all utterance, had by this time subsided. And that, 
after praying, they "sang praises to God," shows how quickly the 
soothing effects of prayer had still further calmed and cheered their 



208 



ACTS XVI: 26-30. 



spirits. The song they sang was not a plaintive strain, suited to the sor- 
rows of the lonely prisoner; but it swelled up in those firm and ani- 
mated tones which are suited to the praises of Grod. How rich the treas- 
ures of faith and hope which can thus cheer the gloom of a midnight 
dungeon, and calm the spirit of the bleeding prisoner of Jesus Christ! 

26. The song of the apostles was a strange sound to the other pris- 
oners, but one most welcome to heaven ; and God, who appeared almost 
to have forsaken his servants, came to their relief in a manner pecu- 
liar to himself, yet most surprising to all within the prison. (26) "And 
suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the 
prison were shaken, and immediately all the doors were opened, and every 
ones bonds were loosed." The prisoners were all awake when this oc- 
curred, having been awakened by the singing, and must instinctively 
have connected the phenomenon with those midnight singers. 

27. The jailer seems not to have heard the singing, but was awak- 
ened by the motion of the earthquake, the slamming of the doors, and 
the clanking of the fetters which fell from the hands of the prisoners. 
(27) "And the jailer, awaking out of sleep, and seeing the prison-doors 
open, drew his sword, and was about to kill himself, supposing that the 
prisoners had fled." It was not so dark as to prevent him from seeing, 
to some extent, what had taken place. He supposed that the prisoners 
had, as a matter of course, all rushed out through the ope doors. He 
knew that the penalty, under the Roman law, for allowing prisoners 
to escape, was death; and that peculiar code of honor among the Ro- 
mans, which made them prefer to die by their own hands, rather than 
by that of an enemy or an executioner, drove him to this attempt at 
suicide. 

28. He had already planted the hilt of his sword upon the floor, and 
was about to cast himself upon the point of it, when Paul, who must 
now have left his dungeon, saw what he was doing, and arrested his 
mad purpose. (28) "But Paul cried, with a loud voice, saying, Bo your- 
self no harm, for we are all here." Reassured by this statement, and 
by the calmness of the tone in which it was uttered, he drew back from 
the leap he was about to make into eternity. 

29. 30. As soon as he could collect his senses, he recollected that 
the calm speaker who had called to him had been preaching salva- 
tion in the name of the God of Israel; and he immediately perceived 
that the earthquake, the miraculous opening of doors, and the unlock- 
ing of chains and handcuffs were connected with him and his com- 
panion. In an instant he recognizes the divine authority, and, glancing 
into the black eternity from which he had suddenly been rescued, his 
own salvation, rather than the safety of his prisoners, at once absorbs 
his thoughts. (29) " Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and 
came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas; (30) and led them 
out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" That he asked this 
question proves that he had some conception of the salvation of which 
Paul had been preaching; and that he trembled, and fell at their feet, 
shows that he was overwhelmed with a sense of danger, and painfully 
anxious to escape from it. At sunset, when coldly thrusting the bleed- 
ing apostles into the dungeon, he cared but little for this question. In 
the midst of life and health, when all goes well with us, we may thrust 



ACTS XVI: 30, 31. 



209 



this awful question from us ; but when we come within an inch of 
death, like the jailer at midnight hanging over the point of his own 
sword, it rushes in upon the soul like a lava torrent, and burns out all 
other thoughts. 

30, 31. Leading the brethren into his family apartment, he received 
a full and satisfactory answer to his question. (30) "They said, Believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house. (31) 
And they spake the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his 
house." Those who advocate the doctrine of justification by faith only, 
appeal with great confidence to this answer of the apostle, as proof of 
that doctrine. We can not enter upon the merits of this doctrine, ex- 
cept as it is affected by this and other passages in Acts. 

To state the argument in its strongest form, it would stand thus : In 
answer to the question, What shall I do to be saved? one thing is com- 
manded to be done : " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ ;" and one thing 
is promised: " You shall be saved." Now, then, Paul could not have 
made this promise on this one condition, unless he knew that all who 
believe on the Lord Jesus are saved. No less than the universal prop- 
osition that all who believe shall be saved, would justify the conclusion 
that if the jailer believed, he would be saved. Paul, then, assumes 
this universal proposition, and, therefore, it must be true. But there 
are some who believe, and are consequently saved, who have never 
been immersed; therefore, immersion does not constitute a part of 
what we must do to be saved. 

The fallacy of this very plausible argument is to be found in the 
ambiguous usage of the term believe. This ambiguity does not arise 
from the fact that there are different kinds of faith; but from the fact 
that the term is sometimes used abstractly, and sometimes to include 
the repentance and obedience which properly result from faith. What- 
ever is affirmed of faith only must necessarily contemplate it in the 
former sense. But in that sense it can not secure justification, as is 
proved by the force of those passages which treat of it in this sense. 
John, in his gospel, says: "Among the chief rulers many believed on 
him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they 
should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men 
more than the praise of Grod."* James also says: "As the body with- 
out faith is dead, so faith without works is dead also."f In these pas- 
sages faith is considered separately from the works which should follow 
it, and is declared to be dead, or inoperative. 

Now, the statement of Paul to the jailer is not, that if he would be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ with a dead faith, or a faith so weak 
as to be overpowered by worldly motives, he should be saved; but he 
evidently contemplates a living faith — a faith which leads to immediate 
and hearty obedience. In this usage of the term it is true that not 
only the jailer, but every other believer may be promised, " Believe on 
the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved." Yet it is equally true that 
the salvation does not result from the faith only; and that it is not 
enjoyed until the faith brings forth the contemplated obedience. If 
faith without works is dead, then it remains dead as long as it remains 
without works. It thus remains until the believer is immersed, if he 
* John xii : 42, 43. t James ii : 21. 

18 



ACTS XVI : 33, 34. 



jpiroceed according to apostolic example; therefore, faith without immer- 
sion is dead. Paul acted upon this principle in the case before us. 
For, after telling him, in the comprehensive sense of the term believe, 
that if he would believe on the Lord Jesus he should be saved, he im- 
mediately gives him more specific instruction, and immerses him the 
same hour of the night."* Those who argue that the jailer obtained par- 
don by faith alone, leave the jail too soon. If they would remain one 
hour longer, they would see him immersed for the remission of his sins, 
and rejoicing in the knowledge of pardon after his immersion, not be- 
fore it.f 

There is another aspect of this answer to the jailer which must not 
be passed by ; for it confirms what we have already said, and at the 
same time harmonizes this with other inspired answers to the- same 
question. To Saul, who was a penitent believer, and sent to Ananias 
to learn what he should do, the latter replied: "Arise and be im- 
mersed and wash away your sins." To the Jews on Pentecost, who 
had faith, but faith only, Peter commands: " Kepent and be immersed, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins." But to the jailer, who was a heathen, Paul commands, " Be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ;" and intending more fully to develop 
the manner in which his faith should be manifested, promises, " and 
you shall be saved." Thus each answer is adapted to the exact re- 
ligious state of the party to whom it is addressed, requiring first that 
which is to be done first, and enjoining to be done only that which 
had not been done. 

The conduct of the jailer in prostrating himself before Paul and 
Silas, and crying out, "What shall I do to be saved?" shows that he 
already believed them to be messengers from God, and understood that 
their message had reference to the salvation of men. But there is no 
evidence that his faith or his information extended beyond this. Hav- 
ing commanded him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, it was 
necessary to put within his reach the means of faith ; and this Paul 
proceeds to do by preaching " the word of the Lord to him and to all 
who were in his house." 

33, 34. The preaching, as would be expected under circumstances 
so favorable, had the desired effect both upon the jailer and his house- 
hold. (33) u Ancl he took them the same hour of the night, and washed 
their stripes, and was immersed, he and all his, immediately. (34) And 
having led them into his house, he set food before them, and rejoiced, 
believing in God with all his house." 

Those pedobaptist writers who claim the example of the apostles 
in favor of affusion and infant baptism attempt to find support for 
these practices in this case of conversion. Their argument for affu- 
sion depends entirely upon the assumption that the baptism was per- 
formed within the prison. If this assumption were admitted, it would 
prove nothing in favor of affusion so long as it is possible that there 
were conveniences for immersion within the prison. But the assump- 
tion is in direct conflict with the facts in the case. The facts are 
briefly as follows: First, When the jailer was about to commit sui- 
cide, Paul saw him, which shows that he was then outside of his dun- 

* See verse 33, below. J Verse 34. 



ACTS XVI: 33, 34. 



211 



geon, in the more open part of the prison. Second, Hearing Paul's 
voice, the jailer sprang into the prison, and " led them out" — not out 
of the dungeon, but out of the prison. Third, Being now out of the 
prison, " they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were 
in his house." While speaking, then, they were in the house, and not 
in the prison. Fourth, " He took them and washed their stripes, and 
was baptized." The verb took, in this connection, implies the removal 
of the parties to some other spot for the washing and baptizing. 
Whether to some other part of the house, or out of the house, it does 
not determine. But, fifth, when the baptizing was concluded, " he led 
theminto his house," which shows that, before it was done, he had taken 
them out of the house. Between the moment at which he took them 
out of the house and the moment he brought them into it, the bap- 
tizing was done. But they would not, at this hour of the night, have 
gone out, unless there was some necessity for it, which the demands 
of affusion could not supply. The circumstance, though not in itself 
a proof of immersion, affords strong circumstantial evidence in its 
favor, and is suggestive of that river on the banks of which Lydia 
first heard the gospel, and in which she was immersed. 

It has been suggested that the party could not have passed through 
the gates of the city at this hour of the night; but there is no evidence 
that Philippi was a walled town. Again, it is sometimes objected, 
that the jailer had no right to take his prisoners outside the jail; and' 
that Paul and Silas showed, by their conduct on the next morning, that 
they would not go out without the consent of the authorities.* But 
this is to assume that the jailer would rather obey men than God, and 
that Paul and Silas were so punctilious about their personal dignity 
that they would refuse to immerse a penitent sinner through fear of 
compromising it. Such assumptions are certainly too absurd to be en- 
tertained when once observed; but, even if we cling to them, they can 
not set aside the fact, so clearly established above, that the jailer did 
lead them out of the prison. 

As for the assumption that infants were baptized here, we have al- 
ready observed, in commenting on Lydia's conversion, that it is pre- 
cluded by the fact that all the household believed. " He rejoiced, 
believing in God with all his house." Moreover, Paul and Silas spoke 
the Word to u all who were in the house," yet they certainly did not 
preach to infants. As there were no infants in the house while hear- 
ing, and none while subsequently believing and rejoicing, there could 
be none at the intermediate baptizing. 

Before dismissing this case of conversion, which is the last we 
will consider in detail in the course of this work, we propose a brief 
review of its leading features, that we may trace its essential uni- 
formity with those already considered. The influence which first took 
effect upon him was that of the earthquake, and the attendant opening 
of .the prison-doors. This produced a feeling of alarm and heathenish 
desperation. It awakened within him no religious thought or emo- 
tions until the voice of Paul had recalled all that he had known of the 
apostolic preaching, when he instantly perceived that the miracle had 
been wrought by the God whom Paul and Silas preached. The proper 

* Verse 37. 



212 



ACTS XVI: 35-39. 



effect of miraculous attestation of a messenger of God is next appar- 
ent in his rushing forward, falling before them, and exclaiming. 
"Sirs, what must 1 do to be saved?" He is now a believer in the 
divine mission of the apostles, but not yet a believer in Jesus Christ. 
Whatever he hears from these men, however, he is ready to receive 
as God's truth. He hears from them the "word of the" Lord," and 
the next we see, he is washing from the- neglected stripes of the pris- 
oners the clotted blood, and submitting to immersion. That he was 
immersed proves that he was both a believer and a penitent. After 
immersion, he rejoices. The case exhibits the same essential features 
which we have found in all others ; the same word of the Lord spoken 
and attested by miraculous evidence; the same faith in the Lord 
Jesus Christ, followed by repentance, and the same immersion, fol- 
lowed by the same rejoicing. Thus we trace a perfect uniformity in 
the apostolic procedure, and in the experience of their converts. 

35, 36. When the magistrates gave orders for the imprisonment of 
Paul and Silas, it would naturally be supposed that they intended to 
make some further inquiry into the charges preferred against them. 
But we are told, (35) " When it was day, the magistrates sent the officers, 
saying, Release those men. (36) The jailer told Paul these words, The 
magistrates have sent word that you be released. Now, therefore, depart, 
and go in peace." This order was given without any further develop- 
ments known to the magistrates, at least so far as we are informed, 
and shows that they had only imprisoned the brethren, as they had 
scourged them, to gratify the mob; and now that the clamor of the 
mob had ceased, they had no further motive to detain them. 

37-39. To be thus released from prison, as though they had simply 
suffered the penalty due them, would be a suspicious circumstance to 
follow the missionaries to other cities; and, fortunately, the means of 
escaping it were at hand. (37) " But Paul said to them, They have 
beaten us publicly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into 
prison ; and do they now cast us out privately ? JVo. But let them come 
themselves, and lead us out. (38) The officers told these words to the 
magistrates, and when they heard that they were Romans, they were 
alarmed. (39) And they came, and entreated them, and led them out, and 
asked them to depart out of the city." If the fact of their having been 
scourged and imprisoned should follow them to other cities, it would 
do them no harm, provided it were also known that the magistrates 
had acknowledged the injustice done them, by going in person to the 
prison, and giving them an honorable discharge. 

As it was a capital crime, under the Roman law, to scourge a Ro- 
man citizen, and Paul and Silas both enjoyed the rights of citizenship, 
they had the magistrates in their power, and could dictate terms to 
them. The terms were promptly complied with; for men who can be 
induced to pervert justice by the clamor of an unthinking mob will 
nearly always prove cowardly and sycophantic when their crimes are 
exposed, and justice is likely to overtake them. By making complaint 
to the proper authorities, Paul might have procured their punishment; 
but he had been taught not to resent evil, and was himself in the habit 
of teaching his brethren, "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place 
unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith 



ACTS XVI: 40; XVII: 1-3. 



213 



the Lord."* His conduct, on this occasion, happily illustrates this 
precept. If he had appealed to the Roman authorities for the punish- 
ment of his tormentors, he would have been avenging himself in the 
most effectual method. But to yield, as he did, this privilege, was to 
leave vengeance in the hands of God, to whom it belongs. By this 
course Paul gained the approbation of God, and the admiration of 
posterity, while justice lost nothing; for the unresenting demeanor of 
the apostle "heaped coals of fire on their heads," and the Judge of all 
the earth held their deeds in remembrance. The incident justifies 
Christians in making use of civil laws to protect themselves, but not 
to inflict punishment on their enemies. 

40. When they were discharged, they took their own time to comply 
with the polite request of the magistrates. (40) "Then they went out 
of the prison, and went into the house of Lydia; and having seen the 
brethren, and exhorted them, they departed" Who these "brethren" 
were, besides Luke and Timothy, we can not tell; but the presump- 
tion is, that they were others who had been immersed during their 
stay in the city. 

XVII: 1. Luke now drops the pronoun of the first person, in which 
he has spoken of the apostolic company since they left Troas, and re- 
sumes the third person, which shows that he remained in Philippi after 
the departure of Paul and Silas. He also speaks of these two breth- 
ren as if they constituted the whole company, until they are about to 
leave Berea, when Timothy is again mentioned. f This leads to the 
presumption that Timothy remained with Luke, to still further in- 
struct and organize the infant congregation in Philippi. Leaving the 
cause thus guarded behind them, Paul and Silas seek another field of 
labor. (1) "And having passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, 
they went into Thessalonica, where was the synagogue of the Jews." The 
distance from Philippi to Amphipolis was thirty-three miles; from 
Amphipolis to Apollonia, thirty miles; and from Apollonia to Thes- 
salonica, thirty-seven miles; making just one hundred miles to the 
next city which the apostles undertook to evangelize. The whole of 
this distance was over one of those celebrated military roads built by 
the Romans, and elegantly paved with flag-stones. | 

At Philippi there was no synagogue, and the swift passage of Paul 
and Silas through Amphipolis and Apollonia indicates that there was 
none in either of those cities; hence the synagogue in Thessalonica 
was the only one in a large district of country, for which reason it is 
styled " the synagogue of the Jews." The existence of a synagogue in 
a Gentile city was always an indication of a considerable Jewish pop- 
ulation. Thessalonica, on account of its commercial importance, was 
then, and continues to be, under its modern name Salonica, a great 
resort for Jews. || It was a knowledge of this fact, no doubt, which 
hastened Paul to this city, anticipating, through the synagogue, a 
more favorable introduction to the people than he had enjoyed at 
Philippi. 

2, 3. (2) " And according to Pants custom, he went in to them, and for 
three Sabbath-days disputed with them from the /Scriptures, (3) opening 



* Rom. xii : 19. 

X Life and Ep., vol. 1, pp. 317, 318. 



t Acts xvii: 14. 

J Life aud Ep., vol. 1, p. 325. 



214 



ACTS XVII: 4. 



them, and setting forth that it was necessary that the Christ should suffer, 
and arise from the dead, and that this Jesus whom I preach to you is the 
Christ." This was certainly a well-chosen course of argument. One 
of the chief objections which the Jews urged against Jesus during his 
life was his humble and unpretending position in society, which was 
inconsistent, in their estimation, with his claims to the Messiahship. 
And since his resurrection, the preaching of the Christ as crucified 
was, to the mass of the Jews, a scandal, because it appeared an im- 
peachment of the prophets to proclaim the despised and crucified J esus 
as the glorious Messiah whose coming they had predicted. But Paul 
begins his argument with the Thessalonian Jews, by showing that the 
writings of the prophets themselves made it necessary that the Mes- 
siah "should suffer and arise from the dead." Having demonstrated 
this proposition, it was an easy task to show that "this Jesus whom 
I preach to you is the Christ." It was well known that he had suf- 
fered death, and Paul had abundant means of proving that he had 
risen again. This proof was not confined to his own testimony, as an 
eye-witness of his glory, though we may well suppose that he made 
use of this, as he did on subsequent occasions. * But he gave ocular 
demonstration of the living and divine power of Jesus, by working 
miracles in his name. This we learn from his first epistle to the 
Church in this city, in which he says: "Our gospel came to you not 
in word only, but also in poAver, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much 
assurance; as you know what manner of men we were among you for 
your sake."f The power of the Holy Spirit, working miracles before 
them, gave an assurance of the resurrection and glory of him in whose 
name they w r ere wrought, which the "word only" of all the men on 
earth could not give. Without such attestation, the word of man in ref- 
erence to the affairs of heaven has no claim upon our confidence; but 
with it, it has a power which can not be resisted without resisting God. 

This course of argument and proof occupied three successive Sab- 
baths. During the intervening weeks the two brethren carefully 
avoided every thing which might raise a suspicion that they were gov- 
erned by selfish motives. They asked no man in the city for even their 
daily bread.J They received some contributions to their necessities 
from the brethren in Philippi,|| but the amount was so scanty as to 
still leave them under the necessity of " laboring night and day."§ 

4. The effect of arguments and demonstrations so conclusive, ac- 
companied by a private life so irreproachable, was quite decisive. 
(4) " Some of them believed, and adhered to Paul and Silas; of the de- 
vout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few." In 
this description the parties are distributed with great exactness. The 
expression " some of them" refers to the Jews, and indicates but a 
small number. Of the "devout Greeks," who were such Gentiles as 
had learned to worship God according to Jewish example, there was 
a "great multitude," and not a few of the " chief women," who were 
also Gentiles. The great majority of the converts, therefore, were 
Gentiles; and Paul afterward addresses them as such, saying, "You 
turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God."^| 



* Chapters xxii and xxvi. 
\ Phil, iv : 1C. 



f 1 Thes. i : 5. 
I 1 Thes. ii : 9. 



%\ Thes. ii: 9. 
f 1 Then, i : 9. 



ACTS XVII: 5-10. 



215 



5-9. Such a movement among the devout Gentiles, whose presence 
at the synagogue worship was a source of pride to the Jews, was 
exceedingly mortifying to those Jews who obstinately remained in un- 
belief. Their number and popular influence -in Thessalonica enabled 
them to give serious trouble to Paul and Silas. (5) " But the unbe- 
lieving Jews, being full of zeal, collected certain wicked men of the idle 
class, and raising a mob, set the city in an uproar. And rushing to the 
house of Jason, they sought to bring them out to the people. (6) But not 
finding them, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the city 
rulers, crying out, These men, who have turned the world upside down, 
have come hither also; (7) whom Jason has received; and they are all 
acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, 
Jesus. (8) And they troubled the people and the city rulers, when they 
heard these things ; (9) and having taken security of Jason and the others, 
they released them." 

In the accusation preferred by the Jews there were two specifica- 
tions, each one of which had some truth in it. Nearly everywhere 
that Paul and Silas had preached, there had been some public dis- 
turbance, which was in some way attributable to their preaching. 
But their accusers were at fault in throwing the censure on the wrong 
party. The fact that angry excitement follows the preaching of a 
certain man, or set of men, is no proof, either in that day or this, that 
the preaching is improper, either in matter or manner. When men 
are willing to receive the truth, and to reject all error, the preaching 
of the gospel can have none but peaceful and happy effects. But 
otherwise, it still brings " not peace, but a sword,"* and is the "savor 
of death unto death, "f The apostolic method was to fearlessly 
preach the truth, and leave the consequences with Grod and the 
people. 

The other specification, that the brethren acted contrary to the de- 
crees of Caesar, saying that there was another king, Jesus, shows that 
Paul, while opposing the Jewish idea that the Messiah was to be an 
earthly prince, had not failed to represent him as a king. He repre- 
sented him, indeed, as the " King of kings, and Lord of lords." But 
the accusation contained a willful perversion of his language; for 
these Jews knew very well, as their predecessors before the bar of 
Pilate knew, that Jesus claimed to be no rival of Caesar. If he had, 
they would have been better pleased with him than they were. 

One reason why the Grentiles and city rulers were so readily excited 
by this accusation was the fact that the Jews had then but recently 
been banished from Rome, as we learn from a statement below in 
reference to Priscilla and Aquila.J The unbelieving Jews in Thes- 
salonica, anxious to prove their own loyalty, adroitly directed public 
odium toward the Christian Jews, as the real disturbers of the public 
peace, and enemies of Caesar. 

10. Such was the state of feeling in the city that Paul and Silas 
saw no prospect of accomplishing good by further efforts, while the 
attempt would have been hazardous to the lives of brethren. (10) 
"Then the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night, to 
Berea ; who, when they arrived, went into the synagogue of the Jews." 



* Matt, x : 34. 



t 2 Cor. ii : 16. 



X Acts xviii : 2. 



216 



ACTS XVII: 11-14. 



This city lies about sixty miles south-west of Thessalonica. It con- 
tains, at the present day, a population of fifteen, or twenty thousand, 
and was, doubtless, still more populous then.* Here again the apos- 
tles find a synagogue, and make it the starting point of their labors. 

11. We have now, at last, the pleasure of seeing one Jewish commu- 
nity listen to the truth and examine it like rational beings. (11) "Now 
these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, who received 
the word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily to see 
if these things were so." Their conduct can not be too highly com- 
mended, nor too closely imitated. The great sin of the Jews was a 
refusal to examine, candidly and patiently, the claims of the gospel. 
Having fallen into error by their traditions, they resisted, with passion 
and uproar, every effort that was made to give them additional light, 
or to expose their errors. Their folly has been constantly re-enacted 
by religious partisans of subsequent ages, so that the progress of truth, 
since the dark ages of papal superstition, has been hedged up, at every 
onward movement, by men who, conceived that they were doing God 
service in keeping his truth from the people. If such men live and 
die in the neglect of any duty, their ignorance of it will be so far 
from excusing them that it will constitute one of their chief sins, and 
secure to them more certain and more severe condemnation. There 
is no greater insult to the majesty of heaven than to stop our ears 
when God speaks, or to close our eyes against the light which he 
causes to shine around us. The cause of Christ, as it stands professed 
in the world, will never cease to be disgraced by such exhibitions of 
sin and folly, until all who pretend to be disciples adopt the course 
pursued by these Jews of Berea ; search the Scriptures, upon the pre- 
sentation of every thing claiming to be God's truth, and "see whether 
these things are so." Unless the word of God can mislead us, to 
follow implicitly where it leads can never be unacceptable to its 
Author. 

12. If the claims of Jesus are false, an honest and thorough inves- 
tigation of them is the best way to prove them so. If they are true, 
such an investigation will be certain to convince us and to bless us. 
With the Bereans, the logical result of a daily investigation is stated 
thus : (12) " Therefore, many of them, and not a few of the honorable men 
and women who were Greeks, believed." It was not here, as in Thessa- 
lonica, that u some of them" and "a great multitude of Greeks" be- 
lieved; but it was 11 many of them," and " not a, few of the Greeks." 
That they believed, is distinctly attributed to the fact that they 
44 searched the Scriptures;" showing again, that faith is produced by 
the word of God. 

13. 14. There seemed to be no serious obstacle to the gospel in 
Berea, and the disciples may have begun to flatter themselves with 
the hope that the whole city would turn to the Lord, when an unex- 
pected enemy sprung upon them from the rear. (13) "But ivhen the 
Jews of Thessalonica knew that the word of God was preached by Paul 
in Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. (14) Then 
the brethren immediately sent Paul away, to go as if to the sea; but Silas 
and Timothy remained there." There was always sufficient material 

* Life and Ep., vol. 1, pp. 339-341. 



ACTS XVII: 15-17. 



217 



for a mob, in the rude heathen population of a city as large as Berea, 
and there was always sufficient appearance of antagonism between 
the gospel as preached by Paul, and the laws and customs of the 
heathen, to enable designing men to excite the masses against it. 
Hence the easy success of these embittered enemies from Thessalon- 
ica, who, in addition to other considerations, could ask if Bereans 
would tolerate men who had been compelled to tiy by night from 
Thessalonica. 

The statement that the brethren sent Paul away to "go as if to the 
sea," certainly implies some disguise of his real purpose. The only 
supposition answerable to the phraseology employed is, that he started 
in the direction of the sea, and then turned, so as to pursue the land 
route to Athens,* which was the next field of labor. Mr. Howson, 
who insists that he went by sea, does not display his usual ability in 
arguing the question. f Paul once traveled from Corinth to Berea by 
land, I and why not now from Berea through Athens to Corinth ? The 
fact that it was the more tedious and less usual route, being two hund- 
red and fifty miles overland, is a good reason why he should have 
chosen it the more certainly to elude pursuit. 

Whether by land or by sea, the apostle now leaves Macedonia, and 
starts out for another province of ancient Greece. He has planted 
Churches in three important cities of Macedonia. Of these, Thessa- 
lonica occupied the central position, with Philippi one hundred miles 
to the north-east, and Berea sixty miles to the south-west. Each of 
these becomes a radiating center, from which the light of truth might 
shine into the surrounding darkness. We have the testimony of Paul 
himself, that from at least one of them the light shone with great in- 
tensity. He writes to the Thessalonians: " From you has sounded out 
the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in 
every place your faith toward Cod is spread abroad, so that we have 
no need to say any thing."|| There was no need of Paul's voice at any 
more than central points, when he could leave behind him congrega- 
tions such as this. No doubt much of their zeal and fidelity were 
owing to the fostering care of such men as Silas and Timothy, and 
Luke, whom the apostle occasionally left behind him. 

15—17. (15) 11 Now they who conducted Paul led him to Athens ; and 
having received a commandment to iSilas and Timothy that they should 
come to him as quickly as possible, they departed. (16) And while he 
was xoaiting for them in Athens, his spirit was roused within him, when 
he saw the city given to idolatry. (17) Therefore, he disputed in the syna- 
gogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market-place daily 
with those ivho happened to be there." 

In the ancient world there were two distinct species of civilization, 
both of which had reached their highest excellence in the days oi' the 
apostles. One was the result of human philosophy; the other, of a 
divine revelation. The chief center of the former was the city of 
Athens; of the latter, the city of Jerusalem. If we compare them, 
either as respects the moral character of the people brought respect- 
ively under their influence, or with reference to their preparation for 



* See Olshausen and others ou the passage. 
I Acts xx : 3, 4. 

19 



t Life and Ep., vol. 1, p. 342. Noie. 
II 1 Thes. i : 8. 



218 



ACTS XVII: 18. 



a perfect religion, we shall find the advantage in favor of the latter. 
Fifteen hundred years before, God had placed the Jews under the in- 
fluence of revelation, and left the other nations of the earth to " walk 
in their own ways." By a severe discipline, continued through many 
centuries, the former had been elevated above the idolatry in which 
they were sunk at the beginning, and which still prevailed over all 
other nations. They presented, therefore, a degree of purity in pri- 
vate morals which stands unrivaled in ancient history previous to the 
advent of Christ. On the other hand, the most elegant of the heathen 
nations were exhibiting, in their social life, a complete exhaustion of 
the catalogue of base and beastly things of which men and women 
could be guilty.* In Athens, where flourished the most profound 
philosophy, the most glowing eloquence, the most fervid poetry, and 
the most refined art which the world has ever seen, there was the most 
complete and studied abandonment to every vice which passion could 
prompt or imagination invent. 

The contrast in reference to the preparation of the two peoples to re- 
ceive the gospel of Christ is equally striking. In the center of Jewish 
civilization the gospel had now been preached, and many thousands 
had embraced it. It had spread rapidly through the surrounding 
country ; and even in distant lands, wherever there was a Jewish syna- 
gogue, with a company of Gentiles, who, by Jewish influence, had 
been rescued from the degradation of their kindred, it had been gladly 
received by thousands of devout men and honorable women. But 
nowhere had its triumphs penetrated far into the benighted masses 
outside' of Jewish influence. The struggle now about to take place 
in the city of Athens is to demonstrate still further, by contrast, how 
valuable "a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ" had been the law 
and the prophets. 

Walking along the streets of a city whose fame had been familiar to 
him from childhood, and seeing, in the temples and statues on every 
hand, and the constant processions of people going to and from the 
places of worship, evidence that "the city was given to idolatry;" 
though a lonely stranger, who might have been awed into silence by 
the magnificence around him, Paul felt his soul aroused to make one 
mighty struggle for the triumph, even here, of the humble gospel 
which he preached. His first effort, as usual, was in the Jewish syna- 
gogue. But there seem to have been none among the Jews or devout 
Gentiles there to receive the truth. The pride of human philosophy, 
and the debasement of refined idolatry had overpowered the influence 
of the law and the prophets, so that he fails of his usual success. He 
does not, however, despair. Having access to no other formal assem- 
bly, he goes upon the streets, and places of public concourse, and dis- 
courses to " those who happened to be there." 

18. By efforts so persistent he succeeded in attracting some attention 
from the idle throng, but it was of a character, at first, not very flatter- 
ing. (18) "Then certain of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encoun- 
tered him, and some said, What will this babbler say ? And others, He 
seems to be a proclaimer of foreign demons; because he preached to them 
Jesus and the resurrection." The persistency with which he sought the 
* See Romans i : 22-32. 



ACTS XVII: 19-23. 



219 



attention of every one he met suggested the epithet "babbler" and 
the prominence in his arguments of the name of J esus and the resur- 
rection suggested to the inattentive hearers that these were two foreign 
demons whom he was trying to make known to them. 

The two classes of philosophers whom he encountered were the 
antipodes of each other, and the practical philosophy of each was an- 
tipodal to the doctrine of Paul. The Stoics taught that the true 
philosophy of life was a total indifference to both the sorrows and 
pleasures of the world; while the Epicureans sought relief from life's 
sorrows in the studied pursuit of its pleasures.* In opposition to the 
former, Paul taught that we should weep with those who weep, and 
rejoice with those who rejoice; and in opposition to the latter, that we 
should deny ourselves in reference to all ungodliness and worldly lusts. 

19-21. Notwithstanding the contempt with which Paul was regarded 
by some of his hearers, he succeeded in arresting the serious attention 
of a few. (19) "And they took him and led him to the Areopagus, say- 
ing, Oan we know what this new doctrine is, of which you speak f (20) 
For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. We wish to know, 
therefore, what these things mean. (21) For all the Athenians, and the 
strangers dwelling there, spent their time in nothing else than telling or 
hearing something new" The Areopagus was a rocky eminence, as- 
cended by a flight of stone steps cut in the solid rock, on the summit 
of which were seats in the open air, where the judges, called Areopa- 
gites, held court for the trial of criminals, and of grave religious ques- 
tions. The informal character of the proceedings on this occasion 
shows that it was not this court which had summoned Paul, but that 
those who were interested in hearing him selected this as a suitable 
place for the purpose. This is further evident from the note of ex- 
planation here appended by Luke, that the Athenians, and strangers 
dwelling there, spent their time in nothing else than telling and hear- 
ing something new. It was more from curiosity, therefore, that they 
desired to hear him, than because they really expected to be benefited 
by what they would hear. 

22-31. After persevering, but necessarily disconnected conversational 
efforts on the streets, Paul has now an audience assembled for the spe- 
cial purpose of hearing him, and may present his theme in a more 
formal manner. He has now not an audience of Jews and proselytes, 
but an assembly of demon-worshipers. He can not, therefore, open 
the Scriptures, and begin by speaking of the long-expected Messiah. 
The Scriptures, and even the God who gave them, are to them un- 
known. Before he can preach Jesus to them, as the Son of God, he 
must introduce to them a true conception of God himself. It was this 
consideration which made the following speech of Paul so different 
from all others recorded in Acts. We will first hear the whole dis- 
course, and then examine the different parts in their connection with 
one another. 

(22) "Then Paul stood up in the midst of the Areopagus, and said : 
Men of Athens, I perceive that in every respect you are devout worshipers 
of the demons. (23) For as I passed along, and observed the objects of 
your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown 

* For a more complete account ot these two sects, see Life and Ep., vol. 1, pp. 366-370. 



220 



ACTS XVII: 22-31. 



God. W7iom, therefore, you worship without knowing him, him I an 
nounce to you. (24) The God who made the world, and all things which 
are in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with 
hands. (25) Neither is he served by the hands of men, as though he 
needed any thing, for it is he who gives to all men life and breath and all 
things, (26) and has made from one blood all nations of men, to dwell upon 
the whole face of the earth, having determined their prearranged periods, 
and the boundaries of their habitations, (27) that they should seek the 
Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, although he is not 
far from each one of us. (28) For in him we live, and move, and have 
our being ; as also some of your own poets have said, ' For we are also his 
offspring! (29) Being, then, the offspring of God, we ought not to think 
that the Deity is similar to gold or silver, or stone graven by the art and 
device of man. (30) Now the times of this ignorance God has overlooked ; 
but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, (31) because he has 
appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by a 
man whom he has appointed, of which he has given assurance to all by rais- 
ing him from the dead. 1 ' 

The excellence of an argumentative discourse is measured by the de- 
gree of adaptation to the exact mental condition of the audience, and 
the conclusiveness with which every position is established. It would 
be difficult to conceive how this discourse could be improved in either 
of these particulars. 

The audience were worshipers of demons, or dead men deified. 
Nearly all their gods were supposed to have once lived on the earth. 
They regarded it, therefore, as an excellent trait of character to be 
scrupulous in all the observances of demon worship. Paul's first re- 
mark was not that they were "too superstitious,"* nor that they were 
"very religious ; "f though both of these would have been true. But 
the term he employs, deioedaiuovscripovg, from dsicu to fear, and daiuuv 
a demon, means demon-fearing, or given to the worship of demons. This 
was the exact truth in the case, and the audience received the state- 
ment of it as a compliment. The second remark is introduced as a 
specification under the first : " For, as I passed along and observed 
the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, 
To the Unknown God." After erecting altars to all the known gods, 
so that a Eoman satirist^ said it was easier to find a god in Athens 
than a man, they had extended their worship even to such as might 
be in existence without their knowledge. No specification could have 
been made to more strikingly exemplify their devotion to demon 
worship. The commentators have suggested many hypotheses by 
which to account, historically, for the erection of this altar, all of 
which are purely conjectural. It is sufficient to know, what the text 
itself reveals, that its erection resulted from an extreme desire to ren- 
der due worship to all the gods, both known and unknown. 

Having spoken in this conciliatory style, both of their worship in 
general, and of this altar in particular,- Paul next excites their curi- 
osity, by telling them that he came to make known to them that very 
God whom they had already worshiped without knowing him. They 
had, by this inscription, already confessed that there was, or might 

* Common version. v f Blooinfield and others. J Petronius. Life and Ep., 1, p. 363. 



ACTS XVII: 22-31. 



221 



be, a God to them unknown ; hence they could not complain that he 
should attempt to introduce a new God to their acquaintance. They 
had also rendered homage to such a God while they knew him not ; 
hence they could not consistently refuse to do so after he should be 
revealed to them. Thus far the course of the apostle's remarks was 
not only conciliatory, but calculated, and intended, to bind the 
audience in advance to the propositions and conclusions yet to be 
developed. 

He next introduces the God to whom he refers as the God who 
made the world, and all things in it, and who is Lord of both heaven 
and earth. -That there was such a God, he assumes; but the assump- 
tion was granted by a part of his audience, the Stoics, and the Epicu- 
reans found it difficult to account to themselves for the fact that the 
world was made, without admitting that there was a God who made it. 
He endeavors to give them a just conception of this God, by presenting 
several points of contrast between him and the gods with whom they 
were familiar. The first of these is, that, unlike them, " He does not 
dwell in temples made with hands." All around the spot where he 
stood were temples in which the gods made their abode, and to 
which the people were compelled to resort in order to communicate 
with them. But that the God who made heaven and earth does not 
dwell in temples made by human hands, he argued from the fact that 
he was u Lord of heaven and earth ; " which implies that he could not 
be confined within limits so narrow. This was enough to establish 
his superiority to all other gods in power and majesty. 

The next point of contrast presented has reference to the services 
rendered the gods. His hearers had been in the habit of presenting 
meat offerings and drink offerings in the temples, under the supersti- 
tious belief that they were devoured by the gods. But Paul tells them 
that the unknown God " is not served by the hands of men as though he 
needed any thing; for it is he who gives to all men life and breath and 
all things, and has made from one blood all nations of men," and 
appointed beforehand their periods, and the boundaries of their habit- 
ations. These facts demonstrate his entire independence of human 
ministrations, and exhibit, in a most striking manner, the dependence 
of men upon him. They not only sustain the point of contrast pre- 
sented by Paul, but they involve an assumption of the most special 
providence of God. By special providence, we mean providence in 
reference to individual persons and things. If God gives to all men 
life and breath and all things, he acts with reference to each individ- 
ual man, to each individual breath that each man breathes, and to 
each particular thing going to make up all the things which he 
gives them. Again, if God appoints beforehand the " periods" of the 
nation,) by which I understand all the great eras in their history,) and 
the " boundaries of their habitations," he certainly directs the move- 
ments of individual men ; for the movements of nations depend upon 
the movements of the individual men of whom they are composed. 
Sometimes, indeed, the movements of one man, as of Christopher Co- 
lumbus, determine the settlement of continents, and the destiny of 
mighty nations. In view of these facts, we must admit the most 
special and minute providence of God in all the affairs of earth. It 



222 



ACTS XVII: 22-31. 



would never, perhaps, have been doubted, but for the philosophical 
difficulty of reconciling it with the free agency of men, and of discrimi- 
nating between it and the working of miracles. This difficulty, how- 
ever, affords no rational ground for such a doubt, for the method of 
God's agency in human affairs is above human comprehension. To 
doubt the reality of an assumed fact, the nature of which is con- 
fessedly above our comprehension, because we know not how to 
reconcile it with other known facts, is equivalent to confessing our 
ignorance at one moment, and denying it the next. It were wiser to 
conclude, that, if we could only comprehend that which is now incom- 
prehensible, the difficulty would vanish. While the uneducated swain 
is ignorant of the law of gravitation, he can not understand how the 
world can turn over without spilling the water out of his well ; but 
the moment he apprehends this law the difficulty disappears. 

The incidental statement that God made from one blood all the na- 
tions of men, is an inspired assertion of the unity of the race, and ac- 
cords with the Mosaic history. To deny it because we find some 
difficulty in reconciling it with the present diversity in the types of 
men, is another instance of the fallacy just exposed. It is to deny an 
assertion of the Scriptures, not because of something we know, but 
of something we do not know. We do not know, with certainty, what 
caused so great diversity among the races of men, and, because of this 
ignorance, we deny their common paternity. Such a denial could not 
be justified, unless we knew all the facts which have transpired in 
human history. But much the larger portion of human history is 
unwritten and unknown; and, at the same time, we are dependent, for 
all we do know of the first half of it, upon the word of God. The 
only rational course, therefore, which is left to us, is to receive its 
statements in their obvious import as the truth of history. 

In arguing this last proposition, Paul interweaves with his proof a 
statement of God's purpose concerning the nations, "that they should 
seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him." He 
here has reference to those nations who were without revelation ; and 
means, I think, that one purpose of leaving them in that condition 
was to make a trial of their ability, without the aid of revelation, to 
seek and feel after the Lord so as to find him. It resulted in demon- 
strating what Paul afterward asserted, that " the world by wisdom knew 
not God," and that, therefore, "it pleased God, by the foolishness of 
preaching, to save those who believe."* 

From this reference to the efforts of men to find God, a natural asso- 
ciation of thought led the speaker to assert the omnipresence of God: 
"Although he is not far from each one of us; for in him we live, and 
move, and have our being; as also some of your own poets have said, 
For we are also his offspring." The connection of thought in this 
passage is this: We are his offspring, as your own poets teach, and 
this is sufficient proof that he is still about us; for he certainly would 
not abandon the offspring whom he has begotten. 

From the conclusion that we are the offspring of God, Paul advances 
to the third point of contrast between him and the gods around him: 
" Being, then, the offspring of God, toe ought not to think that the Deity 

* 1 Cor. i : 21. 



ACTS XVII: 32, 33. 



223 



is similar to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by the art and device of 
man." . This was a strong appeal to the self-respect of his hearers. 
To acknowledge that they were the offspring of God, and at the same 
time admit that he was similar to a carved piece of metal, or marble, 
was to degrade themselves by degrading their origin. 

The argument by which he revealed to them the God who had been 
unknown is now completed. He has exhibited the uselessness of all 
the splendid temples around him, by showing that the true God dwells 
not in them, and that he is the God who made the earth and the 
heavens and all conceivable things. He has proved the folly of all 
their acts of worship, by showing that the real God has no need of any 
thing, but that all men are dependent on him for life and breath and 
all things. He has exhibited the foreknowledge; the providence, gen- 
eral and special; the omnipresence, and the universal parentage of this 
God; and has made them feel disgusted at the idea of worshiping, as 
their creator, any thing similar to metal or marble shaped by human 
hands. Thus their temples, their services, and their images are all 
degraded to their proper level, while the grandeur and glory and pa- 
ternity of the true God are exalted before them. 

The speaker next advances to unfold to his hearers their fearful 
responsibility to the God now revealed to them. The times of igno- 
rance, in which they had built these temples and carved these images, 
he tells them that God had overlooked; that is, to use his own language 
on another occasion, he had " suffered the nations to walk in their own 
ways."* "But now, he commands all men everywhere to repent; be- 
cause he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in 
righteousness, by a man whom he has appointed, of which he has 
given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." This was evi- 
dently not designed for the concluding paragraph of the speech, but 
was a brief statement of the appointment of Jesus as judge of the 
living and the dead, preparatory to introducing him fully to the audi- 
ence. But here his discourse was interrupted, and brought abruptly 
to a close. 

32, 33. (32) 11 And when they heard of a resurrection of the dead, some 
mocked ; but others said, We will hear you again concerning this matter. 
(33) So Paul departed from among them." There are two strange fea- 
tures in the conduct of this audience. First, That they listened so 
patiently while Paul was demonstrating the folly of all their idolatrous 
worship, which we would expect them to defend with zeal. Second, 
That they should interrupt him with mockery when he spoke of a res- 
urrection from the dead, which we would have expected them to wel- 
come as a most happy relief from the gloom which shrouded their 
thoughts of death. But the former is accounted for by the prevailing 
infidelity among philosophic minds in reference to the popular wor- 
ship, rendering formal and heartless with them a service which was 
still performed by the masses with devoutness and sincerity. Their 
repugnance to the thought of a resurrection originated not in a prefer- 
ence for the gloomy future into which they were compelled to look, 
but in a fondness for that philosophy by which they had concluded 
that death was an eternal sleep. Their pride of opinion had crushed 

* Acts xiv : 1G. 



224 



ACTS XVII: 34; XVIII: 1-3. 



the better instincts of their nature, and led them to mock at the hope 
of a future life, which has been the dearest of all hopes to the chief 
part of mankind. Thus the devotees of human philosophy, instead of 
being led by it to a knowledge of the truth, were deceived into the for- 
feiture of a blessed hope, which has been enjoyed by ruder nations, 
amid all their ignorance and superstition. 

34. Although his discourse terminated amid the mockery of a por- 
tion of his audience, the apostle's effort was not altogether fruitless. 
(3-1) "But certain men followed him and believed; among whom were 
Dioyiysius the Areopagite, and a woman named, Damaris, and others with 
them." We find, hoAvever, no subsequent trace of a Church in Athens 
Avithin the period of apostolic history, and these names are not else- 
A\'here mentioned. We are constrained, therefore, to the conclusion, 
that the cold philosophy and polished heathenism of this city had too 
far corrupted its inhabitants to admit of their turning to Christ, until 
some providential changes should prepare the way. 

XVIII: 1. Having met AA r ith so little encouragement in the literary 
capital of Greece, the apostle next resorts to its chief commercial em- 
porium. (1) "After these things Paul departed from Athens, and went 
to Corinth." This city Avas situated on the isthmus Avhich connects the 
Peloponnesus Avith Attica. Through the Saronic Gulf and iEgean Sea 
on the east, it had direct communication with all*the great Asiatic 
cities, and with Rome and the west through the Gulf of Corinth and 
the Adriatic. It was, therefore, a place of great commercial advant- 
ages; and, at the time of Paul's visit, was the chief city of all Greece. 
Its advantages for trade had attracted the large JeA\ r ish population 
AA'hich the apostle found there. 

2, 3. Paul entered this large city a stranger, alone, and penniless. 
What little means he had brought AA r ith him from Macedonia AA r as ex- 
hausted, and his first attention was directed to the supply of his daily 
wants. He kneAv what, it was to suffer ''hunger and thirst;"* but he 
had been taught to look to heaven and pray, "Give us this day our 
daily bread." A kind Providence found him lodging and means of 
livelihood. (2) "And having found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in 
Pontus, and Priscilla his wife, lately come from Italy because Claudius 
had commanded all the Jews to depart from Pome, he went to them, (3) 
and because he was of the same trade, he remained, with them, and worked; 
for they were tent-makers by trade." To be thus under the necessity of 
laboring as a journeyman tent-maker was certainly a most discour- 
aging condition for one about to evangelize a proud and opulent city. 
From the calm and unimpassioned style in Avhich Luke proceeds with 
the narrative, we might imagine that Paul's feelings AA r ere callous to 
the influence of such circumstances. But his own pen, which often 
reveals emotions that were not knoAvn to Luke, giA r es a far different 
representation of his feelings. Writing to the Corinthians after long 
years had passed aAvay, and all transient emotions had been forgotten, 
he says, "I was Avith you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trem- 
bling, f Though keenly sensitive to all the distressing influences Avhich 
surrounded him, he had, Avithal, so strong confidence in the power of 
truth, and so gloried in the very humility of the gospel, that he never 



* 2 Cor. xi : 27. 



1 1 Cor. ii : 3. 



ACTS XVIII: 4, 5. 



225 



despaired. The companionship of two such spirits as Aquila and 
Priscilla afterward proved to be, was, doubtless, a source of great en- 
couragement to him. 

4, 5. Notwithstanding all the discouragements of his situation, he 
devoted the Sabbaths, and whatever portion of the week his manual 
labor would permit, to the great work. (4) u But he discoursed every 
Sabbath in the synagogue, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. (5) 
And when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was 
pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. 11 It 
will be recollected by the reader, that Silas and Timothy, whose arrival 
is here mentioned, had tarried in Berea, and that Paul had sent back 
word to them, by the brethren who conducted him to Athens, to rejoin 
him as soon as possible.* He had also " waited for them in Athens,"f 
before his speech in the Areopagus. We would suppose, from Luke's 
narrative, that they failed to overtake him there, and now first rejoined 
him in Corinth. But Paul supplies an incident in the First Epistle to 
the Thessalonians, which corrects this supposition. He says: "When 
we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left alone in 
Athens, and sent Timothy to establish you and to comfort you concern- 
ing your faith. "J This shows that Timothy, at least, had actually re- 
joined him in Athens, and had been sent back to learn the condition, 
of the congregation in Thessalonica. His present arrival in Corinth, 
therefore, was not from his original stay in Berea; but from a recent 
visit to Thessalonica. Probably Silas had remained till now in Berea. 

The arrival of Silas and Timothy brings us to a new period in the 
life of Paul, the period of his letter-writing. We have already made 
some use of his epistles to throw light upon the somewhat elliptical 
narrative before us; but we shall henceforth have them as cotempo- 
rary documents, and will be able to fill up from them many blanks in 
Paul's personal history. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was 
written from Corinth soon after the arrival of Timothy, as is proved 
by the concurrence of the two facts, that, on the return of Silas and 
Timothy, as seen in the text just quoted, they found Paul in Corinth, 
and that, in the epistle itself, Paul speaks of their arrival as having 
just taken place at the time of writing. || Several statements in this 
epistle throw additional light upon the state of Paul's feelings during 
his first labors in Corinth. He was not only "present in spirit," as 
stated by Luke, " in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling," as he 
himself says to the Corinthians ;§ but he was racked with uncontrollable 
anxiety concerning the brethren in Thessalonica, for whom he would 
have been willing to sacrifice his own life, and who were now suffering 
the severest persecution.^" The good report brought from them by Silas 
and Timothy gave him much joy, but it was joy in the midst of dis- 
tress. He says: "When Timothy came to us from you, and brought 
us good tidings of your faith and love, and that you have remem- 
brance of us always, desiring greatly to see us, as we also to see you, 
therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction 
and distress by your faith : for now we live, if you stand fast in the 
Lord."** It was, therefore, with a zeal newly kindled from almost 



* Acts xvii : 14, 15. 
I 1 Cor. ii : 3. 



t Acts xvii : 16. % 1 Thes. iii : 1, 2. || 1 Thes. iii : 6. 

\ 1 Thes. ii : 8, 14-16. ** 1 Thes. iii : 6-8. 



226 



ACTS XVIII: 6-10. 



utter despair, by the good report from Thessalonica, and the arrival of 
his fellow-laborers, that he now so " earnestly testified to the Jews that 
Jesus is the Christ." 

6, 7. The increase of Paul's earnestness was responded to by an 
increased virulence in the opposition of the unbelieving Jews. (6) 
11 But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said 
to them, Your blood be upon your own head; I am clean. Henceforth I 
will go to the Gentiles. (7) And he departed thence, and went into the 
house of a man named Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was 
adjacent to the synagogue. 11 When they began to resist his preaching 
with passion and violent imprecations, he could no longer hope to do 
them good, and to press the subject further upon them would be to 
cast pearls before swine. Upon leaving the synagogue, he was not 
driven into the streets for a meeting-place; but, as was usually the 
case, while he was urging, with so little success, the claims of Jesus 
upon the Jews, at least one Gentile, who had learned to worship the 
true God, heard him more favorably, and offered him the use of his 
private dwelling, which stood close by. Justus was not yet a disciple, 
but, as suits the meaning of his name, he was disposed to see justice 
done to the persecuted apostle. 

8. Although he left the synagogue in apparent discomfiture, he 
was not without fruits of his labors there. (8) u But Crispus, the 
chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house ; 
and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were immersed. 11 It 
was very seldom that men of high position in the Jewish synagogues 
were induced to obey the gospel. It is greatly to the credit of Crispus, 
therefore, that he was among the first in Corinth to take this position, 
and this, too, at the moment when the opposition and blasphemy of 
the other Jews were most intense. He must have been a man of great 
independence of spirit and goodness of heart — the right kind of a man 
to form the nucleus for a congregation of disciples. 

The conversion of these Corinthians is not detailed so fully as that 
of the eunuch, of Saul, or of Cornelius, yet enough is said to show 
that it was essentially the same process. " Many of the Corinthians, 
hearing, believed, and were immersed." They heard what Paul 
preached, "that Jesus is the Christ." This, then, is what they be- 
lieved. That they repented of their sins is implied in the fact that 
they turned to the Lord by being immersed. To hear the gospel 
preached, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and to be immersed, was 
the entire process of their conversion, briefly expressed. 

9, 10. Although his success, when about leaving the synagogue, 
must have been a source of some comfort to Paul, an incident occurred 
just at this period, which shows that he was far from being relieved, 
as yet, from the "weakness, and fear, and much trembling" which 
had oppressed him. (9) " Then the Lord said to Paid in a vision by 
night, Be not afraid; but speak, and be not silent; (10) for L am with 
you, and no man shall assail you to hurt you. For L have many people 
in this city. 11 The Lord never appeared by a vision to comfort his serv- 
ants, except when they needed comfort. The words "Be not afraid ' 
imply that he was alarmed, and the assurance that no one should hurt 
him implies that his alarm had reference to his personal safety. His 



ACTS XVIII: 11-13. 



227 



very success had, doubtless, fired liis opponents to fiercer opposition, 
and his recent sufferings at Philippi seemed about to be repeated. 
But, at the darkest hour of his night of sorrow, the light of hope sud- 
denly dawned upon him, and he was strengthened Avith the assurance 
that many in the city would yet obey the Lord. 

In the declaration, " I have many people in this city," the Lord 
called persons who were then unbelievers, and perhaps idolaters, his 
people. This would accord with the Calvinistic idea that God's people 
are a certain definite number whom he has selected, many of whom 
are yet unconverted. But it can not prove this doctrine, because it 
admits of rational explanation upon another hypothesis. He knew 
that these people would yet believe and obey the gospel, and he could, 
therefore, with all propriety of speech, call them his by anticipation. 
Such is no doubt the true idea. 

An expression similar to this occurs in the eighteenth chapter of 
Revelations, where the angel, announcing the downfall of the mystic 
Babylon, cries: " Come out of her, my people , that you be not partakers 
of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues." It has been ar- 
gued, from this, that God has a people in the apostasy, who are already 
accepted as his own. But the language, like the statement, "I have 
many people in this city," may be used simply in anticipation. The 
most that can be argued from it, is that he knew a people would come 
out of Babylon whom he could accept, and that he called them his 
people on account of that fact. 

11. Under the assurance given by the Lord in the vision, Paul was 
encouraged to continue his labors. (11) " Then he continued there a 
year and six months, teaching among them the word of God." Instead 
of the more usual expression, 11 preaching the word of God," we have 
here " teaching the word of God." This change of phraseology is not 
without a purpose. It indicates that Paul's labor, during this period, 
consisted not so much in proclaiming the great facts of the gospel, as 
in teaching his hearers the practical precepts of the Word. He was 
executing the latter part of the commission as recorded by Matthew: 
" Teaching them to observe and do all that I have commanded you." 

12, 13. The next paragraph introduces an incident which occurred 
within this period of eighteen months, and which is worthy of special 
notice, because of several peculiarities not common to the scenes of 
apostolic suffering. (12) " While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the 
Jews, with one accord, rose up against Paul and led him to the judgment- 
seat, (13) saying, This man is persuading men to worship God contrary 
to the law." Here we have the same charge, in form, which was pre- 
ferred against Paul at Philippi and Thessalonica, causing all the 
trouble which befell him in those cities.* But the charge, in those 
instances, was preferred by Greeks, with reference to the Roman law; 
while, in the present, the Jews had the boldness to prefer it in their 
own name, with reference to their own law. This fact indicates a de- 
gree of confidence in their own influence which we have not seen 
exhibited by the Jews in any other Gentile city. 

11-16. In this case, however, they had to deal with a man of far 
different character from the magistrates of Philippi, or the city rulers 

* Acts xvi : 20-23 ; xvii : 5-10. 



228 



ACTS XVIII: 14-18. 



of Thessalonica. Gallio was a brother of Seneca, the famous Roman 
moralist, who describes him as a man of admirable integrity, amiable 
and popular.* Such was the character which he exhibited on this 
occasion. Instead of yielding to popular clamor, as did so many pro- 
vincial and municipal officers, before whom the apostles were arraigned, 
he examined carefully the accusation, and seeing that it had reference, 
not to any infraction of the Roman law, but to questions in regard to 
their own law, he determined at once to dismiss the case. (14) u Bu t 
when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it 
were a matter of injustice or wicked recklessness, Jews, it would be rea- 
sonable that I should bear with you. (15) But since it is a question con- 
cerning a doctrine and words, and your own law, do you see to it ; for I 
do not intend to be a judge of these matters. (16) And he drove them from 
the judgment-seat." This is the only instance, in all the persecutions 
of Paul, in which his accusers were dealt with summarily and justly. 
The incident reflects great credit upon Gallio. 

17. Prompt and energetic vindication of the right, on the part 
of a public functionary, will nearly always meet the approbation of 
the masses, and will sometimes even turn the tide of popular preju- 
dice. Whether the disinterested public were favorable or unfavorable 
to Paul before the decision, we are not informed; but when the case 
was dismissed, the spectators were highly gratified at the result. (17) 
" Then all the Greeks seized Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, 
and beat him before the judgment-seat ; and Gallio cared for none of 
these things." For once, the heart of the unconverted multitude was 
with the apostle, and so indignant were they at the unprovoked at- 
tempt to injure him, that when it was fully exposed, they visited upon 
the head of the chief persecutor the very beating which he had laid 
up for Paul. Sosthenes was most probably the successor of Crispus, 
as chief ruler of the synagogue, and may have been selected for that 
position on account of his zeal in opposing the course which Crispus 
had pursued. The beating which the Greeks gave him was a riotous 
proceeding, which Gallio, in strict discharge of his duty, should have 
suppressed. That he did not do so, and that Luke says, "Gallio 
cared for none of these things," has been generally understood to 
indicate an easy and yielding disposition, which was averse to the 
strict enforcement of law. This, however, is inconsistent with the 
promptness of his vindication of Paul, and his indignant dismissal of 
the accusers. I would rather understand it as indicating a secret 
delight at seeing the tables so handsomely turned upon the persecu- 
tors, prompting him to let pass unnoticed a riot, which, under other 
circumstances, he would have rebuked severely. The rage and disap- 
pointment of the Jews must have been intense ; but the rough hand- 
ling which their leaders experienced admonished them to keep quiet 
for a time. 

18. This incident occurred some time previous to the close of the 
eighteen months of Paul's stay in Corinth, as we learn from the next 
verse. (18) u Now Paul, having still remained for many days, bade the 
brethren farewell, and sailed into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, 
having sheared his head in Cenchrea; for he had a vow." It is after the 

* Life and Ep., vol. 1, p. 418, and note. 



ACTS XVIII: 18. 



229 



arraignment before Gallio, and previous to his departure from Corinth, 
that we best locate the date of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
That it was written in Corinth is determined chiefly by a comparison 
of its contents with those of the First Epistle. The congregation was 
still suffering from the same persecution mentioned in the First Epis- 
tle,* and there was still among them some improper excitement in 
reference to the second coming of the Lord.f Both these circumstances 
indicate that it was written shortly after the first; as soon, perhaps, 
as Paul could hear from them after their reception of the first. That 
it was after the arraignment before Gallio, is sufficiently evident, I 
think, from the absence of those indications of distress in the mind of 
the writer which abound in the First Epistle. He did not enjoy this 
comparative peace of mind until after the persecutions of the Jews 
culminated and terminated in the scene before Gallio's judgment-seat. 
Many eminent commentators have contended that it was Aquila, and 
not Paul, who sheared his head at Cenchrea. The main argument by 
which they defend this position is based upon the fact that the name 
of Aquila is placed after that of his wife Priscilla, and next to the 
participle Keipa/Lievoc, having sheared, for the very purpose of indicating 
that the act was performed by him. J Others, who insist that it was 
Paul, reply that the order of the names is not conclusive, inasmuch 
as they occur in this order in three out of the five times that they are 
mentioned together in the New Testament. |j My own opinion is that 
it was Paul, and my chief reason for so thinking is this : the term 
Paul is the leading subject of the sentence, to which all the verbs and 
participles must be referred, unless there is some grammatical neces- 
sity for detaching one or more of them, and referring them to another 
subject. Priscilla and Aquila are subjects of the verb sailed under- 
stood: "Paul sailed into Syria, and with him (sailed) Priscilla and 
Aquila." But if it was intended also to refer the act of shearing to 
Aquila, the English would require the relative and verb instead of the 
participle : " with him Priscilla and Aquila who had sheared his 
head," instead of "Priscilla and Aquila, having sheared his head." 
The Greek, in order to express this idea, would also have required 
the article or relative after Aquila. In the absence of such a modifica- 
tion of the construction, we must refer the terms neipafievoc, having 
shaved, and ei%e, had, to the leading subject of the sentence, with 
which agree all the other verbs, rrpoG/xeivag tarried, airoTa^ap.evoc took 
leave of and k^rrei sailed away. The objection that Paul could not 
have taken such a vow consistently with his position in reference to 
the law of Moses, is fallacious in two respects. First, It assumes a de- 
gree of freedom from legal observances on the part of Paul which his 
conduct on subsequent occasions shows that he had not attained.^ 
Second, It assumes, without authority, that this vow was one peculiar 
to the law, which it would be improper for Christians to observe. 
The vow of the Nazarite would certainly be improper now, because 
it required the offering of sacrifices at its termination.^ But this was 

* Compare 2 Thes. iii : 9, with 1 Thes. ii : 14-16; iii: 1-4. 
Compare 2 Tlies. ii : 1-3 with 1 Thes. iv: 13 ; v : 3. 
See Bloomfiehl and Howson. 

Acts xviii : 20 ; Bum. xvi : 3 ; 1 Cor. xvi : 19 ; 2 Tim. iv: 19 ; also, Hackott and Ols- 
hauseu. g See Com. xxi : 24. \ See Com. xxi : 24. 



230 



ACTS XVIII : 19-23. 



not that vow, seeing the hair was sheared in Cenchrea; whereas the 
Nazarite's hair could be sheared only at the temple in Jerusalem.* 
What the exact nature of the vow was, we have now no means of 
determining. 

The only practical value of this incident arises from its bearing 
upon present practice. But this is •altogether independent of the ques- 
tion whether it was Paul or Aquila who had the vow. If we admit 
it was Aquila, the presence of Paul, and the approbation indicated by 
his silence, gives to it the apostolic sanction. We conclude, therefore, 
that disciples would be guilty of no impropriety in making vows, and 
allowing the hair to grow until the vow is performed. But it must 
not be inferred, from this conclusion, that we are at liberty to make 
foolish or wicked vows, which would be better broken than kept. 

19-22. Embarking at Cenchrea, which was the eastern port of 
Corinth, on a voyage for Syria, the frequent commercial intercourse be- 
tween Corinth and Ephesusf very naturally caused the vessel to touch 
at the latter city, which was the destination of Priscilla and Aquila. 
(19) "And he went to Ephesus, and left them there. He himself went 
into the synagogue and discoursed to the Jews. (20) They requested him 
to remain longer with them, but he did not consent, (21) but bade them 
farewell,- saying, I must by all means keep the coming feast in Jeru- 
salem; but I will return to you, God willing. (22) And he set sail for 
Ephesus ; and having gone down to Ocesarea, he went up and saluted the 
Church, and went down to Antioch." The context plainly implies that 
the Church which he " went up and saluted" was that in Jerusalem, 
and not, as some have supposed, that in Caesarea; for it had just 
been said that he must reach Jerusalem, and the statement that he 
" went up," especially as it occurs after reaching Caesarea, implies 
that he went up where he had intended to go. The final termination 
of his journey, however, was not Jerusalem, but Antioch, whence he 
had started with Silas on his second missionary tour. The two mis- 
sionaries had gone through Syria and Cilicia; had revisited Derbe, 
Lystra, and Iconium ; and had taken a circuit through Phrygia, Gala- 
tia, and Mysia, to Troas on the Archipelago. Thence they had sailed 
into Europe, and had made known the gospel throughout Macedonia 
and Achaia, planting Churches in the principal cities. Setting sail on 
their return, Paul had left an appointment in Ephesus, where he had 
formerly been forbidden by the Spirit to preach the Word;^ had revis- 
ited Jerusalem, and was now at the end of his circuit, once more to 
gladden the hearts of the brethren who had "commended him to the 
favor of God," by rehearsing all that God had done with him, and 
that he had opened still wider "the door of faith to the Gentiles." 
Whether Silas had returned with him we are not informed. What 
changes had taken place in Antioch during his absence is equally un- 
known. The historian has his eye upon stirring events just ahead in 
Ephesus, and hastens all the movements of the narrative to bring us 
back to that city. 

23. In accordance with this plan, he gives but a brief glance at the 
apostle's stay in Antioch, and the first part of his third missionary 
tour. (23) "Having spent some time there, he departed, passing through 



* See Com. xxi : 24. 



f Lifo and Ep., vol. 1, p. 423. 



% Acts xvi : 6. 



ACTS XVIII : 24-26. 



231 



the district of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, confirming all the dis- 
ciples." The historian now leaves Paul in the obscurity of this joftr- 
ney among the Churches, and anticipates his arrival in Ephesus, by 
noticing some events there, which were, in the providence of God, 
opening the way for his hitherto forbidden labors in that city. 

24-26. (24) "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born in Alexandria, 
an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. (25) 
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord, and, being fervent in 
spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning the Lord, un- 
derstanding only the immersfon of John. (26) He began to speak boldly 
in the synagogue. But Aquila and Priscilla, having heard him, took him 
and expounded to him the way of the Lord more accurately." The dis- 
tinguished position which Apollos acquired, after this, in the Church 
at Corinth, and the familiarity of his name among disciples of all sub- 
sequent ages, renders it a matter of some interest to acquire an accurate 
conception of his personal endowments and his subsequent history. 
The former are set forth in the two statements, that he was u eloquent," 
and that he was "mighty in the Scriptures." The gift of eloquence is 
a natural endowment, but culture is necessary to its effective develop- 
ment. That he was an Alexandrian by birth gives assurance that he 
was not wanting in the most thorough culture; for Alexandria, being 
the chief point of contact between Greek and Jewish literature, was 
the chief seat of Hebrew learning in that and some subsequent genera- 
tions. The Alexandrian Jews, who constituted a large element in the 
population of that city, were noted for their wealth and their learning. 

That he was "mighty in the Scriptures," shows that he had been 
educated to a thorough knowledge of the word of God. The apostles, 
being inspired, and able to speak with miracle-confirmed authority, 
were not entirely dependent upon purely scriptural proofs. But he, 
being uninspired, was entirely dependent upon the use of the prophe- 
sies and types of the Old Testament, in proof of the Messiahship. In 
a day when a. knowledge of the word of God had to be acquired from 
manuscripts, and in which the art of reading was acquired by only a 
few, it was no ordinary endowment to be familiar with the Scriptures. 
Such an attainment is rare, even in this day of printed Bibles, and 
among preachers who profess to devote their lives chiefly to the study 
of the Bible. Indeed, the amount of clerical ignorance now extant 
would astonish the masses of men, if they only had the means of de- 
tecting it. 

What were the exact attainments of this distinguished man in refer- 
ence to the gospel is a question of some difficulty, though in reference 
to it there is a very general agreement among commentators. It is 
generally agreed that he understood no more of the gospel than was 
taught by John the Immerser; and of this the statement that he un- 
derstood only the immersion of John is considered sufficient proof. 
But I confess myself unable to reconcile this supposition with two 
other statements of the historian, equally designed to give us his re- 
ligious status. The first is the statement that he was " instructed in 
the way of the Lord;" and the second, that he "taught accurately the 
things concerning the Lord." That the term Lord refers to the Lord 
Jesus Christ can not be doubted by one who considers Luke's style, 



232 



ACTS XVIII: 27, 28. 



and observes the connection of thought in the passage. But for Luke 
to say, at this late period, that a man was instructed in the way of the 
Lord and taught it accurately, certainly implies a better knowledge of 
the gospel than was possessed by John; for he preached him as one 
yet to come, and knew nothing of his death, burial, or resurrection. 
The two expressions combined would, if unqualified, convey the idea 
that he understood and taught the gospel correctly, according to the 
apostolic standard. They are qualified, however, by the statement 
that he " understood only the immersion of John." This is the only 
limitation expressed, and therefore we shoufd grant him all the knowl- 
edge which this limitation will allow. Whatever a man must lack, 
then, of a thorough knowledge of the gospel, who knows no immersion 
but that of John, we must grant that Apollos lacked; yet the other 
things of the Lord he taught accurately. His ignorance had reference 
to the points of distinction between John's immersion and that of the 
apostles, which were chiefly these, that John did not promise the 
Holy Spirit to those who were immersed, and did not immerse into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. What- 
ever confusion of thought upon kindred topics is necessarily involved 
in ignorance of these two things, Apollos must also have been subject 
to; but we are not authorized to extend his ignorance any further than 
this. On these points he was instructed by Priscilla and Aquila, and 
was then able to teach the things concerning the Lord more accurately. 
There is no evidence whatever that he was reimmersed.* 

27, 28. For some reason unexplained, Apollos concluded to leave 
Ephesus, and visit the Churches planted by Paul in Achaia. (27) 
"And when he desired to cross into Achaia, the brethren wrote, urging the 
disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he afforded much aid to those 
who through favor had believed: (28) for he powerfully and thoroughly 
convinced the Jews in public, clearly showing by the Scriptures that Jesus 
is the Christ^ This is the earliest mention of letters of commendation 
among the disciples. It shows that they were employed simply to 
make known the bearer to strange brethren, and commend him to their 
fellowship. 

The parties to whom Apollos afforded much aid were not, as some 
have contended, "those who believed through his'gift;"-f for the term 
%apig is never used in the sense of either a spiritual or a natural gift 
Neither, for the same reason, can we render the clause, " he aided 
through his gift those who believed."^." Favor is the true meaning of 
the original term, and it stands connected in the sentence with the par- 
ticiple rendered believed. If there were any incongruity in the idea of 
believing through favor, we might, with Bloomfield, connect it with 
the verb, and render the clause " he afforded much aid, through favor, 
to those who believed." But though this is the only instance in which 
parties are said to have believed through the favor of God, it is true of 
all disciples; for the favor of God both supplies the object of faith, and 
brings before men the evidence which produces faith. Luke's own 
collocation of the words, therefore, should guide us, and it rules us to 
the rendering, " he afforded much aid to those who through favor had 
believed." 



* See further, Com. xix : 1-7. 



| Olshausen. % See Bloomfield. 



ACTS XIX: 1-7. 



233 



Apollos mightily convinced the Jews in Achaia; whereas Paul's 
converts had been mostly among the Gentiles. This was, no doubt, 
owing to the peculiarity of his endowments, giving him access to some 
minds which were inaccessible to Paul. A variety of talents and ac- 
quirements among preachers is still necessary to the success of the 
gospel among the immense variety of the minds and characters which 
make up human society. 

XIX : 1-7. Having sketched briefly the visit of Apollos to Ephesus, 
and thus prepared the way for an account of Paul's labors in the same 
city, the historian now reaches the point for which he had so hurriedly 
passed over the apostle's journey from Antioch through Galatia and 
Phrygia and around to Ephesus.* The appointment which he left in 
Ephesus, as he passed through on his way to Jerusalem,! is now to 
be fulfilled. (1) u Now while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul, having 
passed through the upper districts, came to Ephesus, and finding certain 
disciples, (2) said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you 
believed f But they said to him, We have not so much as heard that the 
Holy Spirit is given. (3) He said to them, Into what, then, were you im- 
mersed f They said, Into Johns immersion. (4) Then Paul said, John 
indeed immersed with the immersion of repentance, saying to the people 
that they should believe on him who would come after him, that is, on the 
Christ Jesus. (5) And when they heard this they were immersed into 
the name of the lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul laid hands on them } 
the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prop he~ 
sied. (7) All the men were about twelve." 

This passage is valuable chiefly because it shows how the apostles 
dealt with parties who, at that time, were immersed with John's im- 
mersion. This, no doubt, was Luke's object in introducing it. In 
order to understand the case, it is necessary to keep distinctly in view 
the facts stated of the parties previous to and subsequent to their im- 
mersion by Paul. They are called disciples, and were known as such 
when Paul found them ; for it is said " he found certain disciples." 
They were disciples, not of John, but of Jesus; for the uniform cur- 
rency of the term disciple, throughout Acts, requires us to so under- 
stand it. This is further evident from Paul's question, "Have you 
received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" The term believed 
evidently refers to Jesus as its object. They were known, then, as 
disciples of Jesus, and were so recognized by Paul. 

Up to the moment of his conversation with them, Paul knew noth- 
ing of any irregularity in their obedience; for this was made known, 
to his surprise, during the conversation. When, therefore, he asked 
the question, " Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed ? " 
he could not have referred to that gift of the Spirit which all disciples 
receive; for he would take this for granted, from the fact that they were 
disciples. He must, then, have had reference to the miraculous gift, 
which some disciples did not receive. 

It is inconceivable that these disciples were ignorant of the existence 
of the Holy Spirit, hence a literal rendering of their reply, "We have 
not so much as heard that there is a Holy Spirit," would convey a 
false idea. The supplement given is necessary to complete the sense, 

* Acts xviii : 23. f Acts xv «i : 21. 

20 



234 



ACTS XIX : 1-7. 



as it is in John vii: 39, where it is said, "The Holy Spirit was not yet, 
because Jesus was not yet risen." The term given must be supplied, 
in the latter case, in order to avoid the denial of the existence of the 
Spirit previous to the resurrection; and, in the former, to avoid the 
declaration of an ignorance on the part of these men inconsistent with 
the fact that they were disciples. 

This answer at once revealed to Paul that there was some irregu- 
larity in their religious history; for no one could be properly discipled 
without learning that the Holy Spirit was to be given. He at once 
perceived, too, that the irregularity must have been connected with 
their immersion; for he inquires, "Into what, then, were you im- 
mersed?" If the gift of the Spirit had no connection with immersion, 
this inquiry would have been inapposite, and Paul would not have 
propounded it. But the apostles taught as Peter did on the day of 
Pentecost, when he said, " Repent and be immersed, every one of you, 
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." It is only on the supposition that 
Paul knew this to be the universal teaching of rightly-informed breth- 
ren, that he inferred something wrong about their immersion, from 
their ignorance of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This supposition, how- 
ever, which is a necessary, not an optional one, makes the whole mat- 
ter very plain. Paul's first question had reference to the miraculous 
gift of the Spirit; but when they said they knew not that the Holy 
Spirit was given, he saw that they were ignorant of even the ordinary 
gift, which is promised to all who repent and are immersed, and that 
they were immersed without proper instruction. 

Their reply, that they were immersed into John's immersion, relieved 
the case of all obscurity, and Paul then understood it perfectly. He 
explained, that John's immersion was one of repentance, to he followed 
by faith in the Messiah when he should come. Those immersed by 
him believed that the Messiah was coming; but they did not, until 
after their immersion, believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor did they 
have a promise of the Holy Spirit. They were not, therefore, im- 
mersed into the name of Jesus, or that of the Holy Spirit. This is 
further evident from the fact that Paul commanded these twelve to be 
"immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus," which the authority of 
the commission requires us to understand as equivalent to the expres- 
sion, "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit," These points of defect, however, were not peculiar to the im- 
mersion of these twelve, but attached also to that of the twelve apos- 
tles, the hundred and twenty disciples, and the five hundred who 
saw Jesus together in Galilee after the resurrection,* none of whom 
were reimmersed. What, then, led to the immersion of these par- 
ties? If their immersion had taken place, like that of all these others 
just named, while John's immersion was still an existing institution, 
no reason could be given for their reimmersion. This, then, forces us 
to the conclusion that they had been immersed with John's immersion 
after it had ceased to be administered by divine authority. A polios 
had been recently preaching this obsolete immersion in Ephesus, and 
these persons may have been immersed by him. If so, they submitted 
* 1 Cor. xv : 6. 



ACTS XIX: 8-12. 



235 



to an institution which, had been abrogated more than twenty years, 
and this was the defect which led to their roimmersion. The general 
conclusion, from all the premises, is this: that persons who were im- 
mersed with John's immersion, while it was in lawful existence, were 
received into the Church of Christ without reimmersion. But persons 
who were thus immersed, after the introduction of apostolic immer- 
sion, were reimniersed. The reason why Apollos was not reimmersed 
as well as the twelve, was, doubtless, because, like the apostles and 
the other original disciples, he was immersed during the ministry of 
John. 

8-12. It is worthy of note that Paul commenced his labors in Ephe- 
sus by rectifying what he found wrong in the few disciples already 
there, before he undertook to add to their number. It is an example 
worthy of imitation to the full extent that may be found practicable. 
When he had accomplished this, he was prepared to grapple with the 
Jewish and pagan errors which pervaded the community. (8) "Then 
he went into the synagogue, and spoke boldly for about three months, dis- 
cussing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. (9) 
But when some were hardened and unbelieving, and spoke evil of the way 
before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the disciples, 
discussing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. (10) This continued for 
two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, 
both Jews and Greeks. (11) And God worked unusual miracles by the 
hands of Paul, (12) so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried from 
his person to the sick, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked 
spirits went out of them. 11 This scene in the Jewish synagogue is quite 
uniform in its details, with others which we have noticed. Here is the 
same earnest argument and persuasion upon the one invariable theme; 
the same increasing obstinacy and evil speaking on the part of the un- 
believing Jews, and the same final separation of Paul and the few who 
believed, from the synagogue and the majority who controlled it. As 
the private house of Justus had been his retreat in Corinth, the school- 
house of Tyrannus was his resort in Ephesus. Such incidents have 
their counterpart in the history of all men who have attempted, from 
that day to this, to correct the religious teachings of their cotempo- 
raries. All such attempts are regarded by prevailing religious parties 
as troublesome innovations, and the houses erected for public worship 
are often closed against them. But such petty annoyances are not 
sufficient now, as they were not then, to suppress the truth. Paul, in 
the school-house of Tyrannus, had access to the ears of many who 
would never have entered a synagogue, and who were conciliated by 
the very fact that it was the Jews who persecuted him. This circum- 
stance gained him a favorable hearing from the Greeks, while the 
unusual miracles wrought gave overwhelming attestation to the words 
he spoke. 

13-17. It is difficult to imagine how men could witness miracles so 
astonishing and not acknowledge the presence of divine power. We 
would suppose that even atheism would be confounded in the pres- 
ence of such manifestations, and that the most hardened sinner would 
tremble. How deep the depravity, then, of men, even Jews by birth 
and education, who would see in them nothing but the tricks of a 



236 



ACTS XIX: 13-20. 



skillful and designing magician. Simon the sorcerer had offered to 
purchase this power with money, and Bar-jesus had sought to con- 
vince Sergius Paulus that it was a cheat; but the former was made 
to tremble under the withering rebuke of Peter, and the latter had 
been smitten with blindness by the power which he reviled. A sim- 
ilar display of human depravity, followed by a castigation equally 
6evere, occurred in connection with the unusual miracles just men- 
tioned. (13) " Then certain of the wandering Jewish exorcists under- 
took to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had wicked spirits, 
saying, We adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches. (14) And 
they were seven so?is of Sceva, a Jewish high priest, who did this. 
(15) But the wicked spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul 
I am acquainted with ; but who are you? (16) And the man in whom 
the wicked spirit was, leaped upon them, and overcame them, and pre- 
vailed against them, so that they fled, naked and wounded, out of the 
house. (17) And this became known to all the Jews and Greeks dwell- 
ing in Ephesus, and fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord 
Jesus was magnified." Nothing is more mortifying, or better cal- 
culated to provoke the contempt of the community, than the unex- 
pected exposure of mysterious pretensions such as were assumed by 
these exorcists. The Spirit was enraged at their insulting pretensions, 
and doubtless enjoyed the joke of exposing them. The seven resisted 
until they were stripped and wounded, when they fled, presenting a 
very ludicrous aspect as they passed along the streets. While all 
Ephesus was laughing at them, it was remembered that the Spirit ac- 
knowledged the authority of Jesus, and of Paul, and that a licentious 
use of the name of Jesus was the cause of all their trouble. The 
mirth awakened by the event was soon changed into reverence for the 
name of Jesus, which they now saw was not, as the exorcists had 
pretended, a mere conjurer's talisman. 

18-20. The exposure of the seven exorcists reflected discredit upon all 
the pretenders to magic in Ephesus, while the name of Jesus was 
magnified. The effects upon the public mind were immense and as- 
tonishing. (18) " Then many of those who believed came and confessed 
and declared their practices. (19) And many of those who practiced 
curious arts, brought together their books, and burned them before all. 
And they counted the value of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of 
silver. (20) So mightily did the word of God grow and prevail." 

The believers who " came and confessed and declared their prac- 
tices," had not, till now, realized the impropriety of those arts, which 
their heathen education had taught them to regard with reverence. 
That others, who were not yet disciples, did the same thing, and even 
burned up their books, is a striking proof of the fear that fell upon 
them all. The pieces of silver in which the value of the books was 
computed were doubtless the Attic didrachma; for it was a Greek 
city, and this was the most common silver coin among the Greeks. 
It was worth fifteen cents of Federal money, and the value of all the 
books was seven thousand five hundred dollars; a sufficient indication 
of the extent to which these arts prevailed, and of the number and 
value of the books written in explanation of them. This whole ac- 
count is in full accordance with the profane history of Ephesus, which 




21, 22. The conclusion of the preceding events brought Paul to a 
period of comparative quiet, in which he began to think of leaving 
Ephesus. (21) u When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in 
spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and go to Jerusalem, say- 
ing, After I have been there, I must also see Rome. (22) So he sent 
into Macedonia two of those who were ministering to him, Timothy and 
Erastus ; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season 1 

It is supposed by some that, previous to this period, Paul had made 
a short visit to Corinth, and returned again to Ephesus. This suppo- 
sition is based upon expressions in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
which are understood to imply such a visit. I regard the evidence, 
however, as insufficient for a safe conclusion, and will, therefore, treat 
the narrative as though no such visit had taken place. The reader 
who is curious to investigate the question should refer to Mr. Howson 
on the affirmative,-}- and Paley on the negative. £ 

The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Ephesus, as 
we learn from the remark, (chapter xvi : 8,) "I will tarry in Ephesus 
until Pentecost; for a great and effectual door is opened to me, and 
there are many adversaries." It was also during the present visit that 
it was written, for, during his first visit, he did not tarry at all.|| The 
exact date of the epistle is best fixed within the period covered by the 
words " he himself stayed in Asia for a season;" for it was then that 
" a great and effectual door " was first opened to him. Other evidences 
of the date concur with these, and are fully stated by Mr. Howson. § 
This is not really the first epistle Paul wrote to the Corinthians ; 
for in it he speaks of another, which he had previously written, upon 
the subject of fornication. He says: "I wrote to you in an epistle 
not to keep company with fornicators."^ This is all we know of the 
subject-matter of the epistle, which is lost; and perhaps it was for the 
reason that it treated of this subject alone, and in a less detailed 
method than does the epistle now called the first, that it was not pre- 
served with the other two. 

Subsequent to the date of the last epistle, some members of the 
household of Chloe had brought him information of great disorders 
and corruption in the Church in Corinth.** He learned that the 
congregation was distracted by party strife ;ff that fornication, and 
even incest, were still tolerated by them ;%X that some of them were 
engaged in litigation before the civil courts ;|||| that his own apostolic 
authority was called in question ;§§ that their women, contrary to the 
prevailing rules of modesty, took part in the worship with unvailed 
faces ;W that some confusion and strife had arisen in reference to the 
spiritual gifts among them;*** that some among them were even 
denying the resurrection ;fff and that the Lord's supper was profaned 
by feasting and drunkenness.^;| Besides all this, he had received a 
letter from them calling for information in reference to marriage and 

* See Life and Ep,, vol. 2, p. 21. t lb. p. 2G. % Horso Paulina; on 2 Cor. xiii : 1. 



|| Acts xviii : 19, 20. 
*# 1 Cor. i : 11. 
|| || 1 Cor. ch. vi. 
*** i Cor. ch. xii, xiii, xiY. 



H I Cor. ch. iv and ix. 
ttt 1 Cor. xv : 12. 




XXX 1 Cor. xi ; 17-34. 



238 



ACTS XIX: 23-28 



divorce, and the eating of meats offered to idols. 4 * To answer their 
questions, and .to correct and rebuke these disorders, was the object 
of the epistle. The temper in which it is- written appears calm and 
stern ; yet it is not conceivable that Paul could hear of corruptions so 
gross in a Church which had cost him so much labor and anxiety, 
without intense pain. Though no such feeling was allowed to mani- 
fest itself in the epistle, he was constrained, afterward, to confess it, 
and say to them, " Out of much affliction and anguish of heart, I wrote 
to you, with many tears." \ It was, therefore, with a heart full of an- 
guish in reference to some results of his past labors, but buoyed up 
by the opening of a wide and effectual door in his present field, that 
he sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, but remained himself 
in Asia for a season. 

23-27. (23) "Now, about that period, there arose no small stir concern- 
ing that way. (24) For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, 
brought no little employment to the artisans by making silver shrines of 
Diana. (25) Calling them together, and the workmen employed about such 
things, he said, Men, you understand that by this employment we have our 
wealth. (26) And you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but in 
almost the whole of Asia, this Paul, by his persuasion, has turned away 
a great multitude, saying that they are not gods which are made with 
hands ; (27) and not only is this our business in danger of coming into 
contempt, -but also the temple of the great goddess Diana will be despised, 
and the majesty of her whom all Asia and the world worships ivill be 
destroyed." This is the most truthful and candid of all the speeches 
ever uttered against Paul. The charge that he had said these were 
not gods which were made with hands, was literally true, and free 
from exaggeration. The appeals, too, by which he sought to stir up 
the passions of his hearers, were candid ; for he appeals directly to 
their pecuniary interest, which was suffering; to their veneration for 
the temple, which was counted one of the seven wonders of the world; 
and to their reverence for the goddess who was the chief object of 
their worship. The statement of the effects already produced by 
Paul's preaching throughout the city and the province, endangering 
their whole system of idolatry, was equally truthful. Whether he is 
entitled to the same degree of credit in reference to the motive which 
prompted him, is more doubtful; for the fact that the class of men in 
Ephesus who had the greatest pecuniary interest in the worship of 
Diana were the first to defend Tier sinking cause, is a suspicious cir- 
cumstance, especially when we remember that these artisans had bet- 
ter reason than any others to know that the pieces of silver which 
they had molded and polished with their own hands were not gods. 
It appears to have been a corrupt determination to save their traffic 
at all hazards, which made them ignore the evidence of their own 
senses, and rendered them impervious to the arguments and demon- 
strations of Paul. 

28, 29. The prospect of pecuniary ruin enraged the artisans, while 
their veneration for the goddess suggested the best theme on which to 
give vent to their wrath before the people. (28) And when they heard 
this they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the 
* 1 Cor. vil : 1 ; viii : 1. t 2 ^or. 11 : 4 « 



ACTS XIX: 29-34. 



239 



Ephesians. (29) And the whole city was filled with confusion; and hav- 
ing caught Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Pauls companions in 
travel, they rushed with one accord into the theater." The outcry, " Great 
is Diana of the Ephesians," awakened the old enthusiasm of all the 
idolaters who heard it, and the tone of rage with which it was uttered, 
suggesting some assault upon the honor of the goddess, threw the 
gathering mob into a frenzy. It was a kind providence in reference 
to Paul, that he happened to be out of their reach. Not finding him, 
they seize his companions, and rushing into the theater, where crimi- 
nals were sometimes exposed to wild beasts, they are about to take the 
part of the wild beasts themselves. What was the fate of Gaius and 
Aristarchus is not here stated, though both names occur afterward in 
the history, and probably designate the same individuals.* 

30, 31. When Paul heard the tumult, and knew that his compan- 
ions had been dragged within the theater, he could but suppose that 
they were being torn to pieces. This thought alone was intensely har- 
rowing to his feelings; but it was still more so to know that they were 
suffering in his stead. He could not endure to remain inactive at such 
a crisis, but resolved to die with them. (30) u But Paul, having determ- 
ined to go in to the people, the disciples would not permit him ; (31) and 
some of the Asiarchs,^ also, who were his friends, sent to him and entreated 
him not to trust himself within the theater." By such means he was 
restrained from his desperate purpose, after having fully made up his 
mind to die. The desperation to which he was driven he afterward 
describes to the Corinthians in this touching language: "We would 
not have you ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in. 
Asia, that we were exceedingly pressed down beyond our strength, so 
that we despaired even of life: but we had within ourselves the sen- 
tence of death, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who 
raises the dead."| Giving up all hope of life, as he started toward the 
theater, and trusting in Him who raises the dead, when the' tumult 
had subsided, and he was assured of safety, he felt much as if he had 
been raised from the dead. He therefore says, in the same connection, 
" Who delivered me from so grievous a death, and is delivering, in 
whom I trust that he will even yet deliver us : you also helping by 
prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed on us by means of many per- 
sons, thanks may be given by many on our behalf." || 

32-34. Leaving the apostle, for a time, in the cloud of sorrow which 
we will find still enveloping him when we meet him again, we turn to 
witness the proceedings within the theater. (32) "Now some were cry- 
ing one thing and some another ; for the assembly was confused, and the 
greater part knew not on what account they had come together. (33) And 
they put forward Alexander out of the crowd, the Jews urging him for- 
ward. And Alexander, waving his hand, wished to -make a defense to 
the people. (34) But knowing that he was a Jew, all with one voice, for 
about tivo hours, cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians." There 
were two reasons why the Jews should feel some anxiety to defend 
themselves before this mob. First, It was well known in Ephesus that 

* Acts xx : 4 ; xxvii : 2. 

■j- This was the title of officials chosen to preside over tho annual games in the province 
of Asia.— Howson, ii : 83. J 2 Cor. i : 8, 9. J 2 Cor. i : 10, 11, 



240 



ACTS XIX : 35-41. 



they were as much opposed to idols and idol-worship as were the dis- 
ciples. Second, The fact that the apostle and many of his brethren 
were Jews, naturally attracted toward all the Jews the hatred which 
had been aroused against them. A courageous and manly adherence 
to their own principles would have prompted them to share with the 
disciples the obloquy of their common position; but they were endeav- 
oring to persuade the multitude that Paul and his party should not be 
identified with themselves. The cowardly trick was perceived by the 
multitude, as soon as they perceived that it was a Jew who was trying 
to address them, and they gave it the rebuke it deserved by refusing 
to hear him. 

35-41. The rage of an excited multitude, unless it find some new 
fuel to keep up the flame, will naturally subside in a few hours. While 
it is at its hight, it becomes only the more furious the more it is op- 
posed; but when it begins to subside, frequently a few well-chosen 
words are sufficient to restore quiet. Acting upon this principle, the 
city authorities had not, thus far, interfered with the mob; but when 
they were exhausted by long-continued vociferation, the following well- 
timed and well-worded speech was addressed to them. (35) u But the 
public clerk, having quieted the people, said, Men of Ephesus, what man 
is there who does not know that the city of Ephesus is a worshiper of the 
great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter f 
(36) /Seeing, then, that these things can not be spoken against, you ought 
to be quieted, and do nothing rashly. (37) For you have brought hither 
these men, who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your 
goddess. (38) If, then, Demetrius, and the artisans who are with him, 
have a complaint against any one, the courts are open, and there are pro- 
consuls ; let them accuse one another. (39) But if you are making in- 
quiry concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. 
(40) For we are in danger of being called to account for this day's tumult, 
there being no cause for which we will be able to give an account of this 
concourse. (41) And having spoken thus, he dismissed the assembly. 11 

This is evidently the speech of a man well skilled in the manage- 
ment of popular assemblies, and, doubtless, its happy adaptation to the 
circumstances is what suggested to Luke the propriety of preserving 
it. It is probable that the speaker, like the Asiarchs who interfered to 
keep Paul out of danger, was a friend to the apostle, and a man of too 
much intelligence to receive with blind credulity the popular delusion 
in reference to the temple and image of Diana. The speech, indeed, 
has a ring of insincerity about it, indicating that the speaker was 
merely humoring the popular superstition for the special purpose be- 
fore him. Upon this hypothesis the speech appears the more ingeni- 
ous. The confident assumption that the divine honors bestowed on 
their goddess, and the belief that her image fell from heaven, were so 
well known that no man would call them in question, was soothing to 
their excited feelings ; and the remark that the unquestionable cer- 
tainty of these facts ought to make them feel entirely composed on 
the subject, brought them, by a happy turn of thought, to the very 
composure which he desired, and which they fancied was the result of 
a triumphant vindication of their cause. Advancing, then, to the case 
of the disciples, like a trained advocate, he ignores the real charge 



ACTS XX: 1. 



241 



against them, that of denying that they are gods which are made with 
hands, and declares that they are neither temple robbers, nor revilers of 
their goddess. Then, as for the men who had excited them to this 
disturbance, the proconsular courts were the proper place for com- 
plaints like theirs, and they had no right to disturb the people with 
such matters. Finally, he gives them a gentle hint as to the unlaw- 
fulness of their assemblage, and the probability that they would be 
called to account for it by the Roman authorities. This last remark 
had special force with the majority, who, according to Luke, "knew 
not on what account they had come together;" and the whole speech 
was well aimed toward the result which followed, the dispersion of 
the mob. The city authorities had reason to congratulate themselves 
that so fierce a mob had been so successfully controlled, and the dis- 
ciples could but be thankful to God that they had escaped so well. 

XX: 1. (1) " After the tumult had ceased, Paul called to him the dis- 
ciples, and bade them farewell, and departed to go into Macedonia." Thus 
ended the long-continued labors of the apostle in Ephesus. The " great 
and effectual door," which he saw open before him but a few weeks 
previous, had now been suddenly closed; and the "many adversaries," 
for the noble purpose of resisting whom he had resolved to remain in 
Ephesus till Pentecost,* had prevailed against him. He had accom- 
plished much in the city and province, but there seemed now a terrible 
reaction among the people in favor of their time-honored idolatry, 
threatening to crush out the results of his long and arduous labors. 
When the disciples, whom he had taught and warned with tears, both 
publicly and from house to house, for the space of three years,f were 
gathered around him for the last time, and he was about to leave 
them in a great furnacf of affliction, no tongue can tell the bitterness 
of the final farewell. All was dark behind him, and all forbidding be- 
fore him ; for he turns his face toward that shore across the iEgean, 
where he had been welcomed before with stripes and imprisonment. 
No attempt is made, either by Luke or himself, to describe his feel- 
ings, until he reached Troas, where he was to embark for Macedonia, 
and where he expected to meet Titus returning from Corinth. At this 
point, a remark of his own gives us a clear insight to the pent-up sor- 
rows of his heart. He writes to the Corinthians: "When I came to 
Troas for the gospel of Christ, and a door was opened to me by the 
Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because 1 found not my brother Titus; 
but took leave of them, and came away into Macedonia." %■ We have 
followed this suffering apostle through many disheartening scenes, 
and will yet follow him through many more; but only on this occa- 
sion do we find his heart so sink within him that he can not preach 
the gospel, though a door is opened to him by the Lord. He had hoped 
that the weight of sorrow which was pressing him down above his 
strength to bear,|| would be relieved by the sympathy of the beloved 
Titus, and the good news that he might bring from Corinth; but the 
pang of disappointment added the last ounce to the weight which 
crushed his spirit, and he rushed on, blinded with tears, in the course 
by which Titus was coming. A heart so strong to endure, when once 
crushed, can not readily resume its wonted buoyancy. Even after the 



* 1 Cor. xvi : 8, 9. | Vorse 31. % 2 Cor. ii : 12, 13. || 2 Cor. i: 8. 



242 



ACTS XX: 2, 3. 



sea was between liim and Ephesus, and lie was once more among the 
disciples of Macedonia, he is still constrained to confess, "When we 
had come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted 
on every side; without were fightings; within were fears."* Finally, 
however, the long-expected Titus arrived with good news from Corinth, 
and thus the Lord, who never forgets his servants in affliction, brought 
comfort to the overburdened heart of Paul, and enabled him to change 
the tone of the second letter to the Corinthians, and express himself in 
these words: "Nevertheless, God, who is the comforter of those who 
are lowly, comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not by his coming 
only, but by the consolation with which he was comforted in you, tell- 
ing us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward 
me, so that I rejoiced the more."f 

But the news brought by Titus was not all of a cheering kind. He 
told of the good effects of the former epistle; that the majority of the 
Church had repented of their evil practices; that they had excluded 
the incestuous man; J and that they were forward in their preparation 
for a large contribution to the poor saints in Judea.|| But he also 
brought word that Paul had some bitter personal enemies in the Church, 
who were endeavoring to injure his reputation, and subvert his apos- 
tolic authority. § For the purpose of counteracting the influence of 
these ministers of Satan,^[ encouraging the faithful brethren in their 
renewed zeal, and presenting to them all many solemn and touching 
reflections suggested by his own afflictions, he addressed them the 
epistle known as the Second to the Corinthians, and dispatched it by 
the hands of Titus and two other brethren, whose names are not men- 
tioned.** 

That we are right in assuming this as the date of this epistle, is 
easily established. For, First, He refers, in the epistle, to having re- 
cently come from Asia into Macedonia, which he had now done 
according to the history. Second, He wrote from Macedonia, when 
about to start from that province to Corinth. But he was never in 
Macedonia previous to this, except when there was as yet no Church 
in Corinth, and he was never here afterward on his way from Asia to 
Corinth. 

2, 3. The career of the apostle for the next few months is not given 
in detail, but the whole is condensed into this brief statement : (2) u And 
■when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhorta- 
tion, he went into Greece ; (3) and having spent three months there, he re- 
solved to return through Macedonia, because a plot was laid against him 
by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria." Several events trans- 
pired in the interval thus hurriedly passed over, a knowledge of which 
is accessible through epistles written at the time, and which we shall 
briefly consider. 

When Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem on the mission from 
the Church in Antioch, as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, it" 
was formally agreed, among the apostles then present, that Peter, 
James, and John should labor chiefly among the Jews, and Paul and 



* 2 Cor. vii : 5. f 2 C° r - *fi : 5-12. X 2 Cor. ii : 5-11. || 2 Cor. ix : 1, 2. 

g Seo 2 Cor. x, xii, passim. xi : 13 " 15 - ** lb - viii : i 6-24 ' 

tflb. i: 8: vii : 5. lb. viii : 3, 4 ; xii : 14 ; xiii : 1. 



ACTS XX : 2, 3. 



243 



Barnabas among the Gentiles. It was stipulated, however, that the 
latter should assist in providing for the poor in Judea. "This," says 
Paul, "I was also forward to do."* In accordance with this agree- 
ment, we find that he was now urging a general collection in the 
Churches of Macedonia and Achaia for this purpose. f The Churches 
in Achaia, indeed, were ready for the contribution a whole year before 
this, and Paul had written to them in the First Epistle to the Corinth- 
ians, " Upon the first day of the week, let each of you lay by him in 
store, as God has prospered him, that there be no collections when I 
come."| For prudential considerations, such as prompted him so 
often to labor without remuneration from the Churches, he was not 
willing to be himself the bearer of this gift, although the Churches 
in Macedonia had entreated him to do so. ]j He at first, indeed, had 
not fully intended to go to Jerusalem, in connection with it, but had 
said to the Churches, " Whomsoever you will approve by letters, them 
will I send to take your gift to Jerusalem ; and if it be proper that I 
should go also, they shall go with me."§ The importance of the mis- 
sion, however, grew more momentous as time advanced, so that he 
resolved to go himself, and the enterprise became a subject of most 
absorbing interest. 

The circumstance which led to this result was the increasing aliena- 
tion between the Jews and the Gentiles within the Church. The de- 
cree of the apostles and inspired brethren in Jerusalem, though it had 
given great comfort to the Church in Antioch, where the controversy 
first became rife,^[ and had done good everywhere that it was car- 
ried,** had not succeeded in entirely quelling the pride and arrogance 
of the judaizing teachers. They had persisted in their schismatical 
efforts, until there was now a wide-spread disaffection between the par- 
ties, threatening to rend the whole Church into two hostile bodies. By 
this influence the Churches in Galatia had become almost entirely 
alienated from Paul, for whom they once would have been willing to 
pluck out their own eyes, and were being rapidly led back under bond- 
age to the law of Moses.f f The Church in Rome, at the opposite ex- 
tremity of the territory which had been evangelized, was also disturbed 
by factions, the Jews insisting that justification was by works of law, 
and that the distinctions of meats and holy days should be perpetu- 
ated. |'| Such danger to the cause could but be to Paul a source of 
inexpressible anxiety ; and while it was imminent he concentrated all 
his energies to its aversion. 

Already engaged in a general collection among Churches composed 
chiefly of Gentiles, for the benefit of Jewish saints in Judea, and know- 
ing the tendency of a kind action to win back alienated affections, he 
pushes the work forward with renewed industry, for the accomplish- 
ment of this good end. He presents this motive to the Corinthians, in 
the following words: "For the ministration of this service not only 
supplies the wants of the saints, but also super abounds to God, by means 
of many thanksgivings, (they glorifying God, through the proof supplied 
by this ministration of your subjection to the gospel of Jesus Christ 

* Gal. i : 6-10. + 2 Cor. i : 1 ; viii : 1-15. % 1 Cor. xvi : 2 ; ix : 1, 2. 

|| 2 Cor. viii : 4. \ 1 Cor. xvi : 3, 4. fl See Com. xv: 30-35. 

** See Com. xvi : 4, 5. ft Comp. Gal. i : 6 ; iv : 15, 16 ; iv : 10-21 ; v : 1. 
$1 Rom., chapter* iii, iv, v, ami xiv. 



244 



ACTS XX : 2, 3. 



which you have confessed, and of the liberality of your fellowship for 
them and for all,) and by their prayers in your behalf, having a great 
affection for you on account of the exceeding favor of God which is in 
you."* He here expresses as great confidence in the good result of 
the enterprise, as if it were already accomplished, and the Jews were 
already overflowing with affection to the Gentiles, and offering many 
thanksgivings and prayers to God in their behalf. Thus he felt while 
stimulating the liberality of the brethren; but when the collections 
were all made in the Churches, and he was about to start from Cor- 
inth to Jerusalem with it, his anxiety was most intense, and he began 
to fear that the alienation of the Jews was so great that they would 
not accept the gift, and thus the breach he was trying to close would 
be opened wider. We know this by the almost painful earnestness 
with which he calls upon the hrethren at Kome to pray with him for 
the success of his efforts. He says: "Now I beseech you, brethren, for 
the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that you 
strive together with me in prayer to God for me, that I may be delivered 
from the disobedient in Judea, and that my service which I have for 
Jerusalem may be accepted by the saints."f If he called thus earnestly 
for the prayers of the distant Church at Kome, how much more must 
he have enlisted those of the Churches in Achaia and Macedonia, who 
were immediately concerned in the enterprise itself! We have here 
the spectacle of a man who was regarded with suspicion, if not with 
positive dislike, by a large portion of his brethren, securing from others 
who were involved with him in the same reproach, a self-denying con- 
tribution for the temporal wants of the disaffected party; and, then, 
fearing lest their disaffection was so great as to lead them to reject the 
gift — a fear which would cause most men to withhold it entirely — he 
calls upon all the donors to unite in persistent prayer that it might not 
be rejected. The object of it all, too, was to gain no selfish ends, but 
to win back the alienated affections of brethren, and to preserve the 
unity of the body of Christ. No nobler instance of disinterested benev- 
olence can be found in the history of men. The prosecution of the 
enterprise, as we will hereafter see, was in keeping with the magnan- 
imity of its inception. But before we consider it further, we must 
briefly notice some kindred facts. 

For the same grand purpose which prompted the great collection, 
Paul wrote, during his three months' stay in Corinth, the two epistles 
to the Galatians and the Komans. This we have already assumed in 
our references to them as cotemporaneous with the collection. The 
most conclusive evidence for assigning to them this date may be 
briefly stated as follotvs : In the epistle to the Romans, Paul expressly 
states" that he was about to start for Jerusalem with the contribution 
which had been collected.^ But this could have been said only to- 
ward the close of his present stay in Corinth. Moreover, Gaius, who 
lived in Corinth, was his host at the time of writing to the Romans ;|| 
and Phoebe, of the Corinthian seaport Cenchrea, was the bearer of 
the epistle. § As for Galatians, it contains a reference to Paul's first 
visit to them, implying that he had been there a second time. His 

#2 Cor ix • 12-14. f Rom - xv : 30 > Si « I Rom ' xy : 25 ' 26 ' 

1 Comp. Row. xvi : 23, 1 Cor. i : 14. g Rom. xvi : 1. 



ACTS XX: 4-6. 



245 



words are: "You know that it was on account of sickness that I 
preached the gospel to you at the first."* It was written, then, after 
his second visit. But this leaves the date very indefinite, and there 
are no other notes of time within the epistle itself to fix it more defin- 
itely. There is, however, a close correspondence in subject-matter 
between it and the epistle to the Romans, indicating that they were 
written under the same condition of affairs, and about the same time. 
This, in the absence of conflicting evidence, is considered conclusive, f 
It is not certain which of the two was written first, but, as in Eo- 
mans Paul speaks of his departure for Jerusalem as about to take 
place, it is more probable that Galatians was written previous to this. 
In both, the apostle contends by authority and by argument against 
the destructive teaching of the judaizing party, striving, by this means, 
to put them to silence at the same time that he was aiming, by a 
noble act of self-denial, to win back their good-will, both to himself 
and to the Gentiles, whose cause he had espoused. 

Having dispatched these two epistles, and collected about him the 
messengers of the various Churches, the apostle was about to start 
for Syria by water, when, as the text last quoted affirms, he learned 
that a plot was laid against him by the Jews, which determined him 
to change his course. This plot was probably an arrangement to 
waylay him on the road to Cenchrea, and perhaps both rob and mur- 
der him. Having timely notice of the danger, " he determined to 
return through Macedonia," and started by another road. 

4, 5. (4) "And there accompanied him, as far as Asia, Sopater of Berea; 
Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica ; Gaius of Derbe, and Tim- 
othy ; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. (5) These, going before, 
waited for us at Troas." This sentence brings us again into company 
with two familiar companions of Paul, from whom we have been 
parted for some time. The name of Timothy has not occurred in the 
history before, since he was dispatched with Erastus from Ephesus 
into Macedonia.^ He had, however, joined company again with Paul 
while the latter was in Macedonia, as we learn from the fact that his 
name appears in the salutation of the Second Epistle to the Corinth- 
ians. || Luke, the other party here introduced, has not been an eye- 
witness of the scenes he was describing since the scourging of Paul 
and Silas in Philippi. His significant we and us were discontinued 
then,§ and are not resumed until he says, in this verse, " These, going 
before, waited for us at Troas." The probability is, that he had re- 
sided in that city during the whole of this period, and now, as Paul 
was passing through on his way to Jerusalem, he once more joined 
the company. During his absence the narrative has been very hur- 
ried and elliptical. We snail now, for a time, find it circumstantial 
in the extreme. 

6. The delay of Paul at Philippi may be well accounted for by the 
strong affection which he bore toward the congregation there, and his 
present expectation that he would see their faces in the flesh no 
more.][ (6) u And we, after the days of unleavened bread, sailed away 
from Philippi, and came to them in Troas in five days, where we remained 

Gal. iv: 13. f See the argument more fully stated, Life and Ep., vol. 2, j>. 135. 
Acta xix : 22. || 2 Cor. i : 1. g Acts xvi : 16, 17. Coinp. verse 25. 



246 



ACTS XX: 7. 



seven days'' The "days of unleavened bread" here mentioned re- 
mind ns that it had been nearly one year since the close of Paul's 
labors in Ephesus ; for he was awaiting the approach of Pentecost 
when the mob was aroused by Demetrius.* He probably left there 
between the Passover and Pentecost, and as the Passover had now 
returned again, the time he had spent in his tour through Macedonia 
and Achaia and back to Philippi must have occupied ten or eleven 
months. 

The voyage from Philippi to Troas occupied, as here stated, five 
days, though, on a former occasion, they had sailed from Troas and 
reached Philippi in two days.f The delay on this trip is suggestive 
of adverse winds. 

The brethren who had preceded Paul and Luke to Troas had 
already spent there the five days occupied by the latter on the journey, 
and a portion of the seven days of unleavened bread which they spent 
in Philippi. The seven additional days now spent there by the whole 
company, making an aggregate of more than two weeks, gave suffi- 
cient time to accomplish much in a community where a door was 
already opened by the Lord.J 

7. The last period of seven days included and was terminated by 
the Lord's day. (7) "And on the. first day of the week, when the disci- 
ples came together to break the loaf] Paul discoursed to them, about to 
depart on the next day, and continued his discourse till midnight." This 
passage indicates both the day of the week in which the disciples 
broke the loaf, and the prime object of their meeting on that day. It 
shows that the loaf was broken on the first day of the week ; and we 
have no apostolic precedent for breaking it on any other day. 

The disciples came together on that day, even though Paul and 
Luke and Timothy, and all the brethren who had come from Greece, 
were present, not primarily to hear one or more of them discourse, but 
" to break the loaf." Such is the distinct statement of the historian. 
That such was an established custom in the Churches is implied in 
a rebuke administered by Paul to the Church at Corinth, in which 
he says: "When you come together into one place, it is not to eat 
the Lord's supper." j| Now, for this they would not have deserved cen- 
sure, had it not been that to eat the Lord's supper was the proper ob- 
ject of their assemblage. These facts are sufficient to establish the 
conclusion that the main object of the Lord's-day meetings was to 
to break the loaf. 

This conclusion will be of service to us in seeking to determine the 
frequency with which the loaf was broken. If the prime object of the 
Lord's-day meeting was- to celebrate the Lord's su]3per, then all the 
evidence we have of the custom of meeting every Lord's day is equally 
conclusive in reference to the weekly observance of the Lord's supper. 
But the former custom is universally admitted by Christians of the 
present day, and therefore there should be no dispute in reference to 
the latter. 

It must, in candor, be admitted, that, there is no express statement 
in the New Testament that the disciples broke the loaf every Lord's 
day; neither is it stated that they met every Lord's day. Yet the 



* 1 Cor. xvi : 8. t Acts xvi : n » 12 » X Cow., verse II 1 Cor - xi : 20 - 



ACTS XX: 7. 



247 



question, how often shall the congregation meet together to break the 
loaf, is one which can not be avoided, but must be settled practically 
in some way. The different religious parties have hitherto agreed 
upon a common principle of action, which is, that each may settle 
the question according to its own judgment of what is most profitable 
and expedient. This principle, if applied by congregations instead of 
parties, is a safe one in reference to matters upon which we have no 
means of knowing the divine will, or the apostolic custom. But when 
we can determine, with even a good degree of probability, an apos- 
tolic custom, our own judgment should yield to it. So all parties have 
reasoned in reference to the Lord's day. The intimations contained 
in the New Testament, together with the universal custom known to 
have existed in the Churches during the age succeeding that of the 
apostles, has been decided by them all as sufficient to establish the 
divine authority of the religious observance of the Lord's day; and yet 
they have not consented to the weekly observance of the Lord's sup- 
per, the proof of which is precisely the same. 

As a practical issue between the advocates of weekly communion 
and their opponents, the question really has reference to the compara- 
tive weight of evidence in favor of this practice, and of monthly, quar- 
terly, or yearly communion. When it is thus presented, no one can 
long hesitate as to the conclusion; for in favor of either of the in- 
tervals last mentioned there is not the least evidence, either in the 
New Testament, or in the uninspired history of the Churches. On 
the other hand, it is the universal testimony of antiquity that the 
Churches of the second century broke the loaf every Lord's day, and 
considered it a custom of apostolic appointment. Now it can not 
be doubted that the apostolic Churches had some regular interval 
at which to celebrate this institution, and seeing that all the evidence 
there is in the case is in favor of a weekly celebration, there is no 
room for a reasonable doubt that this was the interval which they 
adopted. 

It is very generally admitted, even among parties who do not observe 
the practice themselves, that the apostolic Churches broke the loaf 
weekly; but it is still made a question whether, in the absence of an 
express commandment, this example is binding upon us. This ques- 
tion is likely to be determined differently by two different classes of 
men. Those who are disposed to follow chiefly the guide of their own 
judgment, or of their denominational customs, will feel little influ- 
enced by such a precedent. But to those who are determined that the 
very slightest indication of the divine will shall govern them, the ques- 
tion must present itself in this way: "We are commanded to do this 
in memory of Jesus. We are not told, in definite terms, how often it 
shall be done; but we find that the apostles established the custom of 
meeting every Lord's day for this purpose. This is an inspired pre- 
cedent, and with it we must comply. We can come to no other con- 
clusion without assuming an ability to judge of this matter with more 
wisdom than did the apostle." 

We return to the meeting in Troas. The extreme length of Paul's 
discourse on this occasion is in striking contrast with the brevity of 
his other speeches, as reported by Luke. It is to be accounted for by 



248 



ACTS XX: 8-11. 



the anxiety of the apostle, in bidding them a final farewell, to leave 
the brethren as well guarded as possible against the temptations which 
awaited them. 

8-10. The long and solemn discourse was interrupted at midnight, 
by an incident which caused great alarm, and some confusion, in the 
audiencS. (8) " Now there were many lamps in the upper chamber where 
we were assembled; (9) and there sat in the window a certain young man 
named Eutychus, who was borne down by deep sleep : and as Paul was 
discoursing a very long time, borne down with sleep, he fell from the third 
story down, and was taken up dead. (10) But Paul went down, and fell 
upon him, and embraced him, and said, Be not troubled, for his life is in 
him.' 1 It is assumed, by some writers, that the young man was not 
really dead, and Paul's remark, "his life is in him," is adduced in 
proof of the assumption.* If this remark had been made when Paul 
first saw him, it might, with propriety, be so understood; but as it was 
made after he had fallen upon him, and embraced him, actions evi- 
dently designed to restore him, it should be understood as only a mod- 
est way of declaring that he had restored him to life. 

11. The alarm produced by the death of Eutychus, the astonishing 
display of divine power in his restoration to life, and the stillness of 
the midnight hour in which it all transpired, could but add greatly 
to the solemnity which already pervaded the audience. Their feel- 
ings were too deeply wrought upon to think of sleep, and the meeting 
was still protracted. They returned to the upper chamber, where the 
lights were still burning, and the elements of the Lord's supper re- 
mained as yet undistributed. Paul, notwithstanding the length and 
earnestness of his discourse, was still unexhausted. (11) 11 And having 
gone up, and broken the loaf, and eaten it, he conversed yet a long time, 
even till daybreak, and so he departed." Thus the whole night was 
spent in religious discourse and conversation, interrupted, at midnight, 
by a death and a resurrection, and this followed by the celebration of 
the Lord's death, which brings the hope of a better resurrection. The 
whole scene concluded at daybreak, in one of those touching farewells, 
in which the pain of parting and the hope of meeting to part no more, 
struggle so tearfully for the mastery of the soul. It was^a night long 
to be remembered by those who were there, and will yet be a theme 
of much conversation in eternity. 

It is a question of some curiosity whether it was at daybreak on ' 
Sunday morning or Monday morning, that this assembly was dis- 
missed. They were assembled in the early part of the night, yet the 
time of their assembling was included in the "first day of the week." 
If the brethren in Troas were accustomed to begin and close the day 
at midnight, according to the Greek custom, it must have been Sun- 
day night when they met. But if they reckoned according to the Jew- 
ish method, which began and closed the day with sunset, then they 
must have met on what we call Saturday night; for in this case the 
whole of that night would belong to the first day of the week, and 
Sunday night to the second day. It is supposed, by many commenta- 
tors, tii at the Greek method prevailed, and that they met Sunday night; 
but, with Mr. Iiowson, I am constrained to the other opinion; a con- 

* Olshausen. 



ACTS XX: 12, 13. 



249 



elusive proof of which I find in the fact, that if the meeting was on 
Sunday night, then the loaf was broken on Monday morning; for it 
was broken after midnight. There can be no doubt of this fact, unless 
we understand the breaking of the loaf, mentioned in the eleventh 
verse, as referring to a common meal. But this is inadmissible; for, 
having stated, (verse 7,) that they came together to break the loaf, 
and now stating, for the first time, that Paul did break the loaf, we 
must conclude that by the same expression Luke means the same 
thing. To the objection that Paul alone is said to have broken and 
eaten the bread, I answer, that this would be a very natural expres- 
sion to indicate that Paul officiated at the table; but, on the other 
hand, if it was a common meal, it would be strange that he alone 
should eat, especially to the exclusion of his traveling companions, 
who were going to start as early in the morning as he did. I con- 
clude, therefore, that the brethren met on the night after the Jewish 
Sabbath, which was still observed as a day of rest by all of them who 
were Jews or Jewish proselytes, and considering this the beginning of 
the first day of the week, spent it in the manner above described. On 
Sunday morning Paul and his companions resumed their journey, be- 
ing constrained, no doubt, by the movements of the ship, which had 
already been in the harbor of Troas seven days. His example does 
not justify traveling on the Lord's day, except under similar constraint, 
and upon a mission as purely religious as that which was taking him 
to Jerusalem. 

12. Recurring again to the incident concerning Eutychus, in order 
to state more particularly the gratification which the brethren felt at 
his recovery, Luke here remarks: (12) " And they brought the young 
man alive, and ivere not a little comforted. 1 ' The close connection of this 
remark with the departure of Paul and his company, and its discon- 
nection from the statement concerning the resumption of the meeting, 
indicate that it refers to their bringing him away from the meeting. 

13. Paul and his whole company departed at an early hour in the 
morning, the meeting breaking up at daybreak for this purpose. But 
their routes for the day were different. (13) 11 We went forward to the 
ship, and sailed for Assos, intending there to take in Paul ; for so he had 
appointed, intending himself to go on foot 1 ' The coasting voyage of the 
ship around Cape Lectum to Assos was about forty miles, while the 
distance across was only twenty.* This would enable Paul to reach 
that point on foot about as soon as the ship could sail there with favor- 
able winds. His motive in choosing to walk this distance, and to go 
alone, has been a subject of various conjectures. But the deep gloom 
which shrouded his feelings, caused by prophetic warnings of great 
dangers ahead; by the critical state of the Churches everywhere; and 
by the final farewell which he was giving to Churches which he 
had planted and nourished, naturally prompted him to seek solitude 
for a time. On shipboard solitude was impossible, and while in port 
there was always a group of disciples or a whole congregation claim- 
ing his attention. His only opportunity, therefore, during the whole 
voyage, for solitary reflection, such as the soul longs for amid trials 

* Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 208, 



250 



ACTS XX: 14-17. 



like his, was to seize this occasion for a lonely journey on foot. Amid 
the more stirring scenes of the apostle's life, while announcing, with 
oracular authority the will of God, and confirming his words by 
miraculous demonstrations, we are apt to lose our human sympathy 
for the man, in our admiration for the apostle. But when we con- 
template him under circumstances like the present, worn down by the 
sleepless labors of the whole night; burdened in spirit too heavily for 
even the society of sympathizing friends; and yet, with all his weari- 
ness, choosing a long day's journey on foot, that he might indulge to 
satiety the gloom which oppressed him, we are so much reminded of 
our own seasons of affliction, as to feel, with great distinctness, the 
human tie which binds our hearts to his. No ardent laborer in the 
vineyard of the Lord but feels his soul at times ready to sink beneath 
its load of anxiety and disappointment, and finds no comfort except 
in allowing the very excess of sorrow to waste itself away amid silence 
and solitude. In such hours it will do us good to walk with Paul 
through this lonely journey, and remember how much suffering has 
been endured by greater and better men than we. 

14-16. The ship and the footman arrived together. (14) "And when 
he met us at Assos, we took him on board and went to Mitylene. (15) 
Sailing thence, the next day we arrived opposite Chios. In another day 
toe came to Samos, and remaining all night at Trogyllium, on the follow- 
ing day we went to Miletus ; (16) for Paul had determined to sail by 
Ephesus, so that he might not spend time in Asia; for he was hasten- 
ing, if it were possible for him, to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pente- 
cost. 1 ' If the ship had been under Paul's control, he could have spent 
at Ephesus the time which was spent at Miletus, without delaying his 
arrival in Jerusalem. The fact, therefore, that he avoided Ephesus, 
to keep from losing time, shows that the vessel was not under his con- 
trol, but that a visit to Ephesus would have required him to leave 
the ship that he was on, and take passage on some other bound for 
that port. This might have caused delay, and the uncertainty of 
meeting at Ephesus a vessel bound for Syria might have protracted 
the delay too long to reach Jerusalem in the time desired. The men- 
tion of the matter by Luke shows that Paul felt some inclination to 
revisit Ephesus, that he might witness the present results of his pro- 
tracted labors there. The day of Pentecost, however, furnished the 
only occasion which he could expect before fall,* on which the Jews 
would be generally congregated in Jerusalem, and he desired to be 
there to distribute the contribution for the poor without visiting the 
rural districts individually for that purpose. We will yet see that he 
made the journey in time for the feast. 

17. His desire to see the brethren in Ephesus was gratified, in 
part, by a short delay of the vessel in the harbor of Miletus. (17) 
u But from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called for the elders of the 
Church. 11 The distance was about thirty miles. f He might have 
gone up himself but for some uncertainty about the movements of 
the vessel, which was probably waiting for some expected ship to 
come into port before proceeding. If he had missed the vessel, it 



* At the feast of Tabernacles. 



t Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 214. 



ACTS XX: 18-21. 



251 



would have defeated his purpose of attending the feast; whereas, if 
the elders should get down too late, they would suffer only the incon- 
venience of the walk. 

18-21. The interview with these elders may be regarded as a type 
of all the meetings and partings which took place on this journey, 
and was, probably, described with minuteness on this account. (18) 
"And when they had come to him, he said to them, You well know 
from the day in which I first came into Asia, after what manner I was 
with you all the time, (19) serving the Lord with all humility and many 
tears and trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews ; (20) that I 
have kept back nothing that was profitable, but have declared it to you, 
and taught you both publicly and from house to house, (21) testifying to 
both Jews and Greeks repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord 
Jesus Christ. 11 The order in which the terms repentance and faith 
occur in this last sentence, and in some other passages,* has been 
urged as proof that repentance occurs before faith in the order of 
mental operations. But this is a most fallacious source of reasoning. 
From it we might argue that sanctification precedes faith, because 
Paul addresses the Thessalonians as having been chosen to salvation 
"through sanctification of spirit and the belief of the truth ;"f or that 
the confession precedes faith, because Paul says : " If thou shalt con- 
fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that 
God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."! The order 
of the words describing two actions proves nothing in reference to the 
order of their occurrence, except when it is made evident that it was 
the writer's intention to indicate the order of occurrence. No such 
intention is manifest here. 

The purpose of the sentence in question is to state the two leading 
topics on which he had testified among the Ephesians, and the order 
in which they are mentioned was suggested by the nature of the case. 
All the Jews in Ephesus and all the Gentiles who attended the syna- 
gogue worship already believed in God, before Paul preached to them 
concerning Jesus. It was also necessary that all the heathen should 
learn to believe in God, before hearing the gospel of the Son of God. 
Moreover, they might be induced to repent toward God, as they had 
all been taught that they must do, before they believed that Jesus 
was the Son of God. Repentance toward God, bringing men to an 
honest and candid state of mind, was a most excellent preparation for 
faith in Jesus Christ. This was the design of John's ministry. He 
prepared them for the reception of Jesus Christ, by calling them to 
repentance before God. Paul also attempted to make known the true 
God to the Athenians, and told them that God had " commanded all 
men everywhere to repent," before he introduced to them the name of 
Jesus. This, however, is far from being proof of repentance before 
faith in the ordinary sense of the expression, which requires not re- 
pentance toward God before faith in Christ, but repentance toward God 
before faith in God. 

That a man can repent toward a God in whose existence he does not 
believe, is not assumed by any party; but all grant that some degree 
or species of faith must precede repentance, while the prevailing 
•:< Mark i : 15. | 2 Tlies - « : 13. % Bom. x : 9. 



252 



ACTS XX : 22-27. 



Protestant parties contend that saving faith, as it is stj^led, must follow 
repentance. The mistake which they commit arises from a miscon- 
ception of the nature of both faith and repentance. Regarding repent- 
ance as simply sorrow for sin, and faith as a yielding up of the will to 
Christ, they very readily reach the conclusion that the former must 
precede the latter. But in this conception the sorrow for sin which 
produces repentance is mistaken for repentance itself; while the yield- 
ing up of the will to Christ, which is really repentance,* is mistaken 
for faith. Repentance, therefore, really covers all the ground usually 
assigned to both repentance and saving faith, leaving no room for 
faith to arise after it. 

A correct definition of faith is equally inconsistent with this con- 
ception. It is " confidence as to things hoped for, conviction as to 
things not seen."-]- It can exist, in. this its fullest sense, only when its 
object is both unseen and a subject of hope. When the object is not 
a subject of hope, as in the faith that the worlds were framed by the 
word of God, J the faith is merely a conviction as to something not 
seen. But Jesus the Christ, the prime object of the Christian's faith, 
is both unseen, and the being upon whom all our hopes depend. 
Faith in him, therefore, is both " confidence as to things hoped for, 
and conviction as to things not seen." But it is impossible for me to 
repent of the sins which I have committed against Christ before I am 
convinced in reference to his Messiahship, and have confidence in refer- 
ence to the things which he has promised. It is, therefore, impossible 
for repentance to precede faith, in reference to him. On the contrary, 
faith, or conviction that he is the Christ, and confidence in reference 
to what he has promised, is the chief means of leading men to repent- 
ance; although it is still true, that deists, such as modern Jews, and 
some others who believe in God but reject Christ, might be induced to 
repent toward God before they believe in Christ. 

We may further remark, that, in the scriptural distribution of our 
conception of the divine nature, God is the proper object of repentance, 
and Jesus Christ of faith. To believe that Jesus is the Christ is the 
faith; but repentance is not thus limited; it has reference to God, 
independent of the distinction between Father and Son. It is this 
thought which suggested the connection of the term repentance with 
the name of God, and faith with that of Christ. 

22-27. The apostle next reveals to these brethren the cause of that 
deep sorrow which we have seen brooding over his spirit even before 
his departure from Corinth. (22) u And now, behold, I go bound in 
spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things which shall befall me there, 
(23) except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying, that bonds 
and afflictions await me. (24) But none of these things move me, neither 
do I hold my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my course with joy, 
and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the 
gospel of the favor of God. (25) And now, behold, I know that you all, 
among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face 
no more. (26) Wherefore, I call you to witness this day, that I am pure 
from the blood of all; {21) for I have kept back nothing from declaring t& 
you the whole counsel of God." 

* See Com. iii : 19. f Heb. xi : 1. J Heb. xi : 3. 



ACTS XX: 28-38. 



253 



28-35. Having thus eloquently expressed himself in reference to his 
past fidelity and his present devotion, he gives them a prophetic warn- 
ing in reference to trials which yet awaited them, and places his own 
example minutely before them for imitation. (28) " Take heed, there- 
fore, to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed 
you as overseers, to be shepherds to the Church of the Lord, which he has 
purchased through his own blood. (29) For I know this, that after my 
departure, fierce wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. (30) 
Also from among yourselves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to 
draw away disciples after them. (31) Therefore, watch; remembering 
that by night and by day, for three years, I ceased not to warn each one 
with tears. (32) And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the 
word of his favor, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inher- 
itance among all the sanctified, (33) i" have coveted no mans gold, or 
silver, or apparel. (34) You yourselves know that these hands have min- 
istered to my necessities, and to those who were with me. (35) In all 
things I have shown you, that so laboring, you should support the weak, 
and should remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said, 
It is more blessed to give than to receive. 11 It was a fearful responsibility 
which rested on the shoulders of these men, to watch as shepherds for 
the flock, and realize that only by fidelity like that of Paul, could they 
be free from the blood of them all. In leaving them to this work, he 
directs their thoughts to the only power sufficient to strengthen them 
to perform it, by commending them to God and to his Word, assuring 
them that the Word was able to build them up, and give them inherit- 
ance among the sanctified. This is another among many proofs which 
we have seen of the confidence of the apostles in the sufficiency and 
power of the word of God. 

The closing admonition has reference to relief of the needy, and to 
the discharge of their duty, even if it were necessary for them to struggle 
hard to make their own bread and meat, remembering that it is more 
blessed to give than to receive. In this, also, he could appeal to his 
own example, saying, "You yourselves know that these hands," hold- 
ing them out to them, "have ministered to my necessities, and to those 
who were with me." Thus he warns and admonishes these elders, in 
a speech of inimitable pathos, which is recorded by Luke that it might 
bear the same lesson to elders of Churches everywhere, teaching that 
no less than apostolic zeal and self-sacrifice are expected of them. 

36-38. When these solemn and touching words were concluded, the 
apostle was ready to re-embark upon the vessel about to weigh anchor 
in the harbor, and the final farewell must be spoken. (36) " And when 
he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all; (37) and 
they all wept much, and fell upon Paul's neck, and, kissed him, (38) sor- 
rowing most of all for the word which he had spoken, that they should 
see his face no more. And they conducted him to the ship?' It would 
be difficult to imagine a more touching scene. The tears of women 
and of children are sometimes shallow; but when full-grown men, 
men of gray hairs, who have been hardened to endurance by the bitter 
struggles of life, are seen to weep like children, and to fall upon one 
another's necks, we have the deepest expression of grief ever witnessed 
on earth. Such, however, is not the sorrow of this world. When the 



254 



ACTS XX : 36-38. 



strong man of the world is overwhelmed with grief, he seeks for soli- 
tude, and his heart grows harder while it is breaking. But the sorrow 
of the man of faith is softening and purifying. It binds the afflicted 
in closer sympathy with one another and with God, while it is sancti- 
fied by prayer. It is painful, but it is not altogether unwelcome. It 
is a sorrow which we are willing to feel again, and which we love to 
remember. The history of the Church is full of scenes like this. 
When the paths of many pilgrims meet, and they mingle together, for 
a few days, their prayers, their songs of praise, their counsels, and 
their tears, the hour of parting is like a repetition of this scene on 
the sea-shore at Miletus. Tears, and heavings of the breast, which tell 
of grief and love and hope all struggling together in the soul; the part- 
ing hand and fond embrace; the blessing of God invoked, but not ex- 
pressed; the sad turning away to duties which the soul feels for the 
moment too weak to perform — these are all familiar to the servants of 
God, and are remembered as tokens of those hours when, most of all, 
the joys of heaven seem to triumph over the sorrows of earth. 

If Paul had been parting from these brethren under happy antici- 
pations for them both, the sorrow of neither party could have been so 
great. But, added to the pain of a final parting was the gloom of their 
own uncertain future, and the terrible and undefined afflictions which 
certainly awaited him. There is not, in the history of our race, apart 
from the sufferings of the Son of God, a nobler instance of self-sacri- 
fice than is presented by Paul on this journey. He had already, 
twelve months before this, recounted a catalogue of sufferings more 
abundant than had fallen to the lot of any other man. He had been 
often in prison, and often on the verge of death. From the Jews he 
had five times received forty stripes save one, and had three times 
been beaten with rods. Once he was stoned, and left on the ground,- 
supposed to be dead. He had suffered shipwreck three times, and 
spent a day and a night struggling in the waters of the great deep. 
In his many journeys, he had been exposed to perils by water, by rob- 
bers, by his own countrymen, by the heathen; in the city, in the wil- 
derness, in the sea, and among false brethren. He had suffered from 
weariness and painfullness and wakefulness. He had endured hunger 
and thirst, and had known what it was to be cold for want of suffi- 
cient clothing. Besides all these things, which were without, he had 
been and was still bearing a burden not less painful in the care of all 
the Churches.* And besides even all this, was that thorn in the flesh, 
the messenger of Satan to buffet him, which was so irritating and 
humiliating that he had three times prayed the Lord to take it from 
him.f These sufferings we would think enough for the portion of one 
man; and we would suppose that his scarredj and enfeebled frame 
would be permitted to pass the remainder of its days in quiet. Yet 
here we find him on his way to Jerusalem, engaged in a mission of 
mercy, but warned by the voice of prophesy that bonds and afflictions 
still awaited him. Most men would have said: I have suffered enough. 
The success of my present enterprise is doubtful, at best, and it is cer- 
tain to bring me once more into prison, and into untold afflictions. I 
will, therefore, remain where I am, amid brethren who love me, and 

■f 2 Cor. xi : 23-28. t 2 Cor - xii : 7 ~ 9 - t Gal - vi : 17 « 



ACTS XXI: 1-6. 



255 



strive to end my days in peace. Such may have been the feelings of 
the Ephesian elders, as they clung tearfully around him; but how 
grandly the hero lifts himself above all such human weakness, while 
he exclaims: "None of these things move me, neither do I hold my 
life dear to myself, so that I may finish my course with joy, and the 
ministry which 1 have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel 
of the favor of God." When parting forever from such a man, they 
well might weep, and stand mute upon the shore till the white sails 
of his vessel grew dim in the distance, ere they turned in loneliness to 
the toils and dangers which they were now to encounter without the 
presence or counsel of their great teacher. We are not permitted to 
return with them to Ephesus, and listen to their sorrowful conversa- 
tion by the way; but must follow that receding vessel, and witness the 
bonds and afflictions which await its most noted passenger. 

XXI : 1-3. The vessel proceeded by a coasting voyage along the 
southern shore of Asia Minor. (1) u And it came to pass, when we had 
separated from them, and set sail, that we ran with a straight course and 
came to Cos ; and the next day to Rhodes, and thence to Patara. (2) 
And finding a ship going across to Phenicia, we embarked and set sail. 
(3) Passing in sight of Cyprus, and leaving it to the left, we sailed to 
Syria, and landed at Tyre, for there the ship was to unload her cargo." 
The change of vessels at Patara must have been occasioned by the 
fact that the one in which they had hitherto sailed was not bound for 
a Phenician port. That the new vessel is said to be going across to 
Phenicia, and that it left Cyprus on the left, is an indication that the 
other was going to cling still further to the coast of Asia Minor, and 
was probably bound for Antioch. 

4 The time employed by the sailors in putting out freight, and 
taking on board a fresh cargo, gave Paul another opportunity for 
communing with brethren on shore. (4) 11 And having found the dis- 
ciples, toe remained there seven days. They told Paul, through the Spirit, 
not to go up to Jerusalem. 1 ' Here Paul met a repetition of those pro- 
phetic warnings which had already cast a gloom over his feelings, and 
so much alarmed were the brethren at the prospects before him, that 
they entreated him to go no further. We are not to understand that 
these entreaties were dictated by the Spirit; for this would have made 
it Paul's duty to desist from his purpose; but. the statement means 
that they were enabled to advise him not to go, by knowing, through 
the Spirit, what awaited him. The knowledge was supernatural; the 
advice was the result of their own judgment. 

5, 6. W T hen the seven days had passed, including, most likely, a 
Lord's day, in which the disciples came together to break bread, an- 
other scene of painful parting occurred, like that at Miletus. (5) u And 
it came to pass that when we completed those days, we departed and went 
our way, they all, with their wives and children, conducting us forward 
till we were out of the city. And we kneeled down on the shore and 
prayed. (6) And bidding each other farewell, we went on board the ship, 
and they returned home." Unlike the scene at Miletus, the sorrow of 
manly hearts was here accompanied by the tenderness of female sym- 
pathy and the tears of children. The tears of the company were bitter, 
but they were sanctified and made a blessing to each heart, by prayer. 



256 



ACTS XXI : 7-14. 



Thus, though all before the apostle, during this journey, was darkness 
and danger, all around him and behind him was earnest pra}-er to God 
in his behalf. Borne forward upon the current of such devotion, he 
was able to breast the storm, and defy all the powers of earth and hell. 

7. The journey by water was soon completed, and the remainder of 
the distance was performed on foot. (7) "And from Tyre we went down 
to Ptolemais, completing the voyage, and saluted the brethren, and re- 
mained, with them one day." If the vessel had been going forward to 
Cassarea without delay, they had better have continued on board than 
to have traveled the distance of thirty or forty miles to that city on 
foot.* We conclude, therefore, that the vessel either intended lying 
in port for awhile, or did not intend to touch at Csesarea. 

The fact that Paul found brethren in Tyre and Ptolemais on the 
coast of Phenicia, where he had never preached before, reminds us 
once more of the dispersion of the Church in Jerusalem, and the fact 
that " they who were scattered abroad upon the persecution which 
arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenicia, speaking the Word to 
none but the Jews."f 

8, 9. The single day spent with the brethren in Ptolemais was suffi- 
cient for the solemn admonitions which Paul was leaving with all the 
Churches, and for another painful farewell. (8) u And the next day 
we departed, and went to Qxsarea. And entering into the house of Philip 
the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. (9) Now he 
had four daughters, who were virgins, and who prophesied. 11 When we 
parted from Philip, after the immersion of the eunuch, he had prose- 
cuted an evangelizing tour through Azotus and the intermediate cities, 
to Cgesarea.J It was probably while he was engaged in this tour that 
Peter had come to Csesarea, and immersed the family and friends of 
Cornelius. When Philip arrived, he found the nucleus of a Church, 
and here we still find him, after a lapse of more than twenty years. 
He seems never to have returned to Jerusalem, to resume his position 
as a deacon of that Church, but accepted the providential arrangement 
by which he was thrown out into a wider field of usefulness, and 
thenceforward was known as Philip the evangelist. That he had four 
maiden daughters, who had the gift of prophesy, indicates the strict 
religious training which he had given to his family. 

10-14. During the interval spent with the family of Philip, another, 
and the last of the prophetic warnings which Paul encountered on 
this journey was given, causing a scene of sorrow similar to those at 
Miletus and Tyre. (10) u And while we were remaining several days, 
there came down from Jerusalem a certain prophet named Agabus ; (11) 
and he came to us, and took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and 
feet, and said, Thus says the Holy Spirit: So shall the Jews in Jeru- 
salem bind the man who owns this girdle, and shall deliver him into the 
hands of the Gentiles. (12) And when we heard this, both we and they 
of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. (13) But Paid an- 
swered, What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart t For lam 
ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem, for the name of 
the Lord Jesus. (14) And when he would not be persuaded, we held our 
peace, saying, The will of the Lord be done." 



* Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 232. f Acts xi: 19 « 



\ Acts viii : 40. 



ACTS XXI: 15, 16. 



257 



Agabus was the same prophet who went from Jerusalem to Antioch, 
and announced the famine which caused the mission of Paul and Bar- 
nabas into Judea with a contribution for the poor.* It was a singular 
coincidence that the same man should now meet him, after the lapse 
of so many years, when entering Judea on a similar mission, and warn 
him of his own personal danger. The dramatic manner in which his 
prophesy was delivered gave Paul a more distinct conception of the 
afflictions which awaited him. If his traveling companions had hith- 
erto been silent when brethren were entreating him to desist from the 
journey, as is implied in the narrative, their courage now failed them, 
and they joined in the entreaties of the brethren in Cassarea. The 
fearfulness of his prospects was a sufficient trial to his own courage, 
when he enjoyed at least the silent sympathy of his chosen compan- 
ions ; but when they deserted him, and threw the weight of their influ- 
ence upon the weight already too heavy for him, the effect was crushing 
to his heart, though the steadfastness of his purpose was not shaken. 
The duty imposed upon him by the fearful condition of the Church 
at large was paramount to all personal considerations, and he felt will- 
ing to be bound and to die in his efforts to maintain the honor of the 
name of the Lord Jesus by preserving the unity of his body. Upon 
this declaration of his sublime self-devotion, the brethren felt unable 
to offer another objection, and gave expression to their reluctant resig- 
nation by the remark, " The will of the Lord be done." 

15, 16. (15) "And after those days, we packed up our baggage, and 
went up to Jerusalem. (16) Some of the disciples from Ccesarea went with 
us, conducting us to one Mnason, a Cyprian, and an old disciple, with whom 
we should lodge." The journey had been accomplished in time for the 
feast of Pentecost. This is made to appear by enumerating the days 
spent on the journey from Philippi. Leaving that city immediately 
after the days of unleavened bread, which was seven days after the 
Passover, he reached Troas in five days, where he spent seven, j Four 
days were occupied in the passage from Troas to Miletus. J Two are 
sufficient to allow for the stay at Miletus. || In three he sailed from 
Miletus to Patara, which place he left the same day he reached it;§ 
and two more days, with favorable weather, would take him to Tyre.^[ 
There he spent seven days, and three in the journey thence to Cgesa- 
rea.** Allowing two days more for the journey from Csesarea to 
Jerusalem, we have enumerated only forty-two of the forty-nine clays 
intervening between the Passover and Pentecost, leaving seven for the 
stay at the house of Philip. That the feast of Pentecost did transpire 
immediately after his arrival in Jerusalem, is indicated by the immense 
multitude of Jews then assembled there, and the presence of some from 
the province of Asia, who had known Paul in Ephesus.ff Nothing 
but the annual feasts brought together in Jerusalem the Jews from 
distant provinces. 

17. The period which had been looked forward to for months with 
prayerful anxiety had now arrived, and Paul was to know, without 
further delay, whether or not the service which he had for Jerusalem 
would be accepted by the saints. H To his unspeakable relief, the 

* Acts xi : 27-30. f Acts xx : G. J Acts xx : 13-15. || Com. xx : 17. g Acts xxi : 1-2. 
Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 227. ** Acts xxi : 4-8. ff Acts xxi ; 27. 11 Rom. xv : 31. 

22 



\ 



258 ACTS XXI: 17-26. 

historian was able to say, (17) "Now when we were come to Jerusalem, 
the brethren received us gladly.' 1 If Luke had given any account of 
the contribution Paul was bringing, we should have expected him to 
say something more definite about its reception than is implied in this 
remark. But, as he saw fit to omit all mention of the enterprise, we 
are at liberty to infer, from the glad reception given to the messengers, 
that the gift they bore was also welcome. The main object of Paul's 
visit and of his prayers was now accomplished. He had finished this 
much of his course and his ministry with joy, and his heart was re- 
lieved from its chief anxiety. Whether the Lord would now accept 
his prayer for deliverance from the disobedient in Jerusalem, he felt to 
be a matter of minor importance. 

18-26. After the general statement that they were gladly received by 
the brethren, Luke proceeds to state more in detail what followed. 
(18) "And on the day following, Paul went in with us to James, and all 
the elders were present. (19) And having saluted them, he related par- 
ticularly what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 
(20) When, they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said to him, You 
see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who believe, and they 
are all zealous for the law. (21) Note they have heard concerning you, 
that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostasy from 
Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according 
to the customs. (22) What, then, is it? The multitude must by all means 
come together ; for they will hear that you have come. (23) Do this, there- 
fore, which we tell you. We have here four men who have a vow upon 
them. (24) Take them, and purify yourself with them, and bear the ex- 
penses for them, in order that they may shear their heads, and all may 
know that those things of which they have heard concerning you are noth- 
ing ; but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But 
as respects the Gentiles who have believed, we have already written, hav- 
ing decided that they observe no such thing, only that they keep themselves 
from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, 
and from fornication. (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day 
went with them into the temple purified, announcing the fulfilling of the 
days of purification, when an offering should be offered for each one of 
them." 

This I confess to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully under- 
stand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the 
Mosaic law. We shall have the exact state of the question before our 
minds, by inquiring, first, What was the exact position of the Jeru- 
salem brethren in reference to the law ? scrond, What had Paul actu- 
ally taught upon the subject? and, third, How can the course pursued 
by both be reconciled to the mature apostolic teaching? 

" First : It is stated, in this speech, of which James was doubtless the 
author, that the disciples about Jerusalem were "all zealous for the 
law." They recognized the authority of Moses as still binding: for 
they complained that Paul taught "apostasy from Moses." The speci- 
fications of this apostasy were, first, neglect of circumcision; second, 
abandonment of "the customs." By "the customs" are meant those 
imposed by the law, among which, as seen in their proposition to Paul, 
were the Nazarite vows, with their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and 



ACTS XXI : 18-26. 



259 



meat-offerings; 45 ' and, as seen in Paul's epistles, abstinence from un- 
clean meats, and the observance of Sabbath-days, holy days, new 
moons, and Sabbatic years, f 

Second. Our inquiry into Paul's teaching on the subject must have 
separate reference to what he had taught before this time, and what 
he taught subsequently. None of his oral teachings on the subject 
are preserved by Luke, hence we are dependent for a knowledge of his 
present teaching upon those of his epistles which were written pre- 
vious to this time. In none of the specifications above enumerated 
did he fully agree with his Jewish brethren. True, he granted the 
perpetuity of circumcision; yet not because he acknowledged with 
them the continued authority of the law, but because of the covenant 
with Abraham which preceded the law.J As for the law, he taught 
that it had been "a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might 
be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer under the 
Echoolmaster;"|j that, "now we are delivered from the law, being dead 
to that in which we were held;" that we are "become dead to the law 
by the body of Christ."§ In repudiating the authority of the law, he 
necessarily repudiated all obligation to observe "the customs." In 
reference to all these, he afterward said to the Colossians, that God 
had " blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, 
which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the 
cross." "Let no man, therefore, judge you in food or in drink, or in 
respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbaths; which are 
a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ. While thus 
repudiating the obligation to observe the ordinances, he admitted the 
innocence of their observance, and forbade any breach of fellowship on 
account of it, laying down in reference to them all, this rule: "Let 
not him who eats, despise him who eats not; and let not him who 
eats not, judge him who eats."** In reference, therefore, to meats and 
days, he and the judaizers agreed that the Jews might observe them; 
but they differed as to the ground of this conclusion : the latter affirmr 
ing that it was a matter of duty; the former holding that it was a 
matter of indifference. 

Thus far we have omitted special mention of one custom, because its 
importance demands for it a separate consideration. We refer to sacri- 
fices. It is evident, from the transaction before us, as observed above, 
that James and the brethren in Jerusalem regarded the offering of 
sacrifices as at least innocent; for they approved the course of the four 
Nazarites, and urged Paul to join with them in the service, though 
it required them to offer sacrifices, and even sin-offerings. They could 
not, indeed, very well avoid this opinion, since they admitted the con- 
tinued authority of the Mosaic law. Though disagreeing with them 
as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, 
Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, 
and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered. 

Third. The commentators uniformly agree that Paul was right, 
and that the rites observed on this occasion are to be referred to that 
class which are indifferent, and in reference to which Paul acted upon 

* Num. vi : 13-17. f Rom. xiv ; Gal. iv : 9, 10 ; Col. ii : 10, 17. t Seo Com. xvi : 3. 
II Gal. iii: 24, 25. g Horn, vii : 4-G. If Col. ii : 14, 17. ** Horn, xiv : 1-6. 



260 



ACTS XXI: 18-26. 



the principle of being a Jew to the Jew, that he might win the Jew.* 
This would not be objectionable, if the proceeding had reference 
merely to meats and drinks, holy days, etc., to which it appears to be 
confined in their view; for all these were indifferent then, and are not 
less so at the present day. Who would say that it would now be sin- 
ful to abstain from certain meats, and observe certain days as holy? 
But it is far different with bloody sacrifices. If disciples, either Jew- 
ish or Gentile, should now assemble in Jerusalem, construct an altar, 
appoint a priesthood, and offer sin-offerings, they could but be regarded 
as apostates from Christ. But why should it be regarded as a crime 
now, if it was innocent then ? 

The truth is, that, up to this time, Paul had written nothing which 
directly conflicted with the service of the altar, and he did not yet 
understand the subject correctly. His mind, and those of all the 
brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject that 
they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the recep- 
tion of the uncircumcised into the Church. If we admit that the prop- 
osition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that "we are no longer 
under the law," was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the con- 
tinuance of sacrifice, we make his case only the more like Peter's in 
regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, 
which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made 
to better understand the force of his own words. Peter finally discov- 
ered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered 
that he was wrong in his connection with the offerings of these Naza- 
rites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic 
priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his 
mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of 
the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the 
Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews. In 
the last-named epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he 
exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of 
Christ, once for all, as the only sufficient sin-offering; and the abro- 
gation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the 
only high priest and mediator between God and man. After these de- 
velopments, he could not, for any earthly consideration, have repeated 
the transaction with the Nazarites; for it would have been to insult the 
great High Priest over the house of God, by presenting, before a human 
priest, an offering which could not take away sin, and which would pro- 
claim the insufficiency of the blood of the atonement. We conclude, 
therefore, that the procedure described in the text was inconsistent 
with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so 
much of it as was then understood by Paul. This conclusion pre- 
sents but another proof that the Holy Spirit, in leading the apostles 
"into all the truth," did so by a gradual development running through 
a series of years. f 

When Paul finally was enabled to understand and develop the whole 
truth on this subject, no doubt the opinions and prejudices of the more 
liberal class of Jewish disciples yielded to his clear and conclusive 

* Bloomfield, Olshausen, Neandcr, Ilackctt, Howson, etc. 
t See Com. x : 9-23 ; xi : 1-18. 



ACTS XXI: 18-26. 



261 



arguments. But, doubtless, some still clung to the obsolete and un- 
lawful service of the temple, assisting the unbelieving Jews to perpet- 
uate it. Then came in the necessity for the destruction of their temple 
and city, so that it should be impossible for them to longer offer sacri- 
fices which had been superseded. The destruction of the temple was 
not the legal termination of the Mosaic ritual; for it ceased to be legal 
with the death of Christ;* but this brought to an end its illegal con 
tinuance. 

Before we dismiss this passage there are two more points claiming 
a moment's attention. First, the justness of the accusation which the 
brethren had heard against Paul. He had certainly taught the Jews 
that they were no longer under the law, and that "the customs" were 
no longer binding, and this was, in one sense, "apostasy from Moses." 
But he had not, as he was charged, taught them to abandon the cus- 
toms ; for he had insisted that they were innocent; and, in reference 
to circumcision, he had given no ground of offense whatever. Hence 
the charge, as understood by those who preferred it, was false; and 
it was with the utmost propriety that Paul consented to disabuse 
their minds, though the means he adopted for that purpose was im- 
proper. 

The last point claiming attention is the nature of the purification 
which Paul underwent. The statement which we have rendered, he 
"purified himself with them," is understood, by some commentators, 
to mean that he took part in their vow of abstinence. f But for this 
meaning of the term, ayv%a>, there is no authority in the New Testa- 
ment; everywhere else it means to purify, and Paul's own statement 
to Felix, that "they found me purified in the temple,"! in which he 
speaks of the same event, and uses the same word, is conclusive as to 
its meaning here. It will be remembered that no Jew who, like Paul, 
had been mingling with Gentiles, and disregarding the ceremonial 
cleanness of the law, was permitted to enter the inner court of the 
temple without being purified. This purification he must have under- 
gone, and there is no evidence that he underwent any other. But it 
is said he purified himself "with them," which shows that they, too, 
were unclean. Now, when a Nazarite became unclean within the 
period of his vow, it was necessary that he should purify himself, shear 
his head on the seventh day after, and on the eighth day bring certain 
offerings. Then he lost the days of his vow which had preceded the 
uncleanness, and had to begin the count anew from the day that the 
offering was presented. This is fully stated in the sixth chapter of 
Numbers, where the law of the Nazarite is prescribed. Such was the 
condition of these Nazarites, as is further proved by the notice given 
of the "days of purification," and the mention, in the next verse below, 
of " the seven days," as of a period well known. Nazarites had no 
purification to perform except when they became unclean during their 
vow; and there was no period of seven days connected with their vow, 
except in the instance just mentioned. In this, instance, as the head 
was to be sheared on the seventh day, and the offerings presented on 
the eighth, there were just seven whole days employed. Paul's part 
was to give notice to the priest of the beginning of these days, and to 
* Eph. ii : 14-10 ; Col. ii : 14, f Bloomfiuld, OlshauBen. J Acts xx i v ' 18. 



262 



ACTS XXI: 27-38. 



pay the expenses of the offerings; but he had to purify himself before 
he went in for this purpose. 

27-30. (27) 11 Now when the seven days were about to be completed, the 
Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, aroused the xohole multitude, 
and laid hands on him, (28) crying out, Men of Israel, help ! This is the 
man who teaches all men everywhere against the people and the law and 
this place, and has even brought Greeks into the temple, and polluted this 
holy place. (29) For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian 
in the city with him, whom they thought Paul had brought into the temple. 
(30) And the whole city was moved, and the people ran together, and seiz- 
ing Paul, dragged him out of the temple ; and the doors were immediately 
closed." If Paul's own brethren in Jerusalem had become prejudiced 
against him on account of his teaching in reference to the law, it is 
not surprising that the hatred of the unbelieving Jews toward him 
should be intense. Their treasured wrath was like a magazine, ready 
to explode the moment a match should be applied ; and to charge him 
with defiling the holy place, which they believed that he had already 
reviled in every nation, was enough to produce the explosion. It is 
not the custom of mobs to investigate the charges heaped upon their 
victims; hence, without knowing or caring to know, whether he had 
really brought Trophimus into the temple, they seized him and dragged 
him out into the court of the Gentiles. The doors of the inner court 
were closed, to prevent the defilement of that holy place by the blood 
which was likely to be shed. 

31-34. For the second time in his history the Koman authorities 
came to Paul's rescue from the hands of his countrymen. (31) u And 
as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the chiliarch^ of the cohort 
that all Jerusalem was in an uproar, (32) who immediately took soldiers 
and centurions, and ran down upon them. And when they saw the chili- 
arch and the soldiers, they quit striking Paul. (33) Then the chiliarch 
drew near and seized him, and commanded him to be bound with two 
chains, and inquired who he was, and what he had done. (34) Put some 
of the multitude cried out one thing, and some another ; and not being able 
to know the certainty on account of the tumult, he commanded him to be led 
into the castle." The inability of the mob to agree upon any charge 
against him shows the precipitancy with which they had rushed upon 
him, while the multiplicity of charges which they vociferated shows 
the intensity of their hatred. The chiliarch was indifferent through 
total ignorance of the case, and desired to act prudently; hence he de- 
termined to proteGt the prisoner, and hold him for examination under 
more favorable circumstances. 

35-39. It was but a short distance to the castle of Antonia, which 
overlooked the temple inclosure, and was connected with it by a stair- 
way. Thither the apostle was rapidly borne, the mob pressing after 
him. (35) u And when he was on the stairs, he was borne by the soldiers, 
on account of the violence of the multitude. (36) For the crowd of people 
followed, crying out, Away with him ! (37) And when he was about to 
be led into the castle, Paul said to the chiliarch, May I say something to 
you ? He said, Do you understand Greek f (38) Are you not that 

* The first was in Corinth, before Gallio. Com. xviii: 14-16. 
j- Captain of a thousand. 



ACTS XXI: 39,40; XXII: 1-16. 



263 



Egyptian, who formerly made an insurrection, and led out into the wil- 
derness four thousand Assassins f (39) Paul said, I am a Jew, of Tar- 
sus, in Cilicia ; a citizen of no unknown city ; and I beseech you, permit 
me to speak to the people." This conversation shows that the chiliarch 
was utterly ignorant of the character and history of his prisoner. The 
best conclusion he could form from the confused outcries of the mob 
was the one indicated in the question just quoted. When lie learned 
that he was a Jew, he was still more perplexed concerning the rage 
of the people, and not less astonished at the coolness displayed by 
Paul. In the hope of learning something more definite, he at once 
gave him liberty to speak, and stood by, an interested hearer. 

40. " And when he gave him permission, Paul, standing upon the stairs, 
waved his hand to the people. And when there was general silence, he 
spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying, 

XXII : 1, 2. (1) " Men, brethren, and fathers, hear my defense, which I 
now make to you. (2) And when they heard that he spoke to them in 
the Hebrew dialect, they kept the greater quiet." It is happily remarked 
by Mr. Howson, that, had he spoken in Greek, the majority of his 
hearers would have understood him; but,- "the sound of the holy 
tongue in that holy place fell like a calm upon the troubled waters." 
It was a mark of respect for Jewish nationality which they were not 
prepared to expect from Paul ; and the result was, that the silence, 
which was only general at the waving of his hand, became universal 
at the utterance of his first sentence. 

3-16. (3) " And he said, I myself am a Jew; born in Tarsus of 
Cilicia, yet brought up hi this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated 
according to the strictest doctrine of the laiv of our fathers, and was 
zealous toward God as you all are this day. (4) I persecuted this way, 
even to death; binding and delivering into prisons both men and women; 
(5) as the high priest and the whole body of the elders are my witnesses : 
from whom, also, I received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus, 
to bring those who were there bound to Jerusalem, that they might be 
punished. (6) Put it came to pass, as I journeyed and was drawing 
near to Damascus, about noon, a great light from heaven suddenly flashed 
around me. (7) / fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to me, 
/Saul, Saul, why do you persecute m.e f (8) And I answered, Who art 
thou, Lord f He said to me, I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you perse- 
cute. (9) Now, they who were with me saw the light, and were afraid; 
but they heard not the voice of him who spoke to me. (10) And I said, 
Lord, what shall I do f And the Lord said to me, Arise, and go into 
Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all things which 
are appointed for thee to do. (11) And, as I could not see for the 
glory of that light, I teas led by the hand by those who were with me, 
and went into Damascus. (12) And one Ananias, a pious man according 
to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who dwelt there, (13) came 
to me, and stood, and said to me, Prother Saul, look up. And that 
moment I looked up upon him. (14) And he said, The God of our 
fathers has chosen you to know his will, and to see the Just One, and to 
hear the voice of his mouth. (15) For you shall be' a witness for him 
to all men, of what you have seen and heard. (16) And now, why do 
you tarry f Arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling 



264 



ACTS XXII: 17-21. 



on the. name of the Lord." Such portions of this speech as are neces- 
sary to a full understanding of Paul's conversion, we have considered 
in commenting on the ninth chapter. The words of Ananias, "Arise 
and be immersed," probably demand a moment's additional notice, on 
account of the use which has been made of them by many pedo bap- 
tist writers and speakers of an inferior grade. It is urged that the 
words should be rendered, "Standing up, be baptized;" and that they 
indicate that Paul was baptized on the spot, without leaving the 
house. We might admit the rendering without granting the con- 
clusion; for the command to be baptized required him to do whatever 
was necessary to that act. If the act was immersion, it required him 
to go where it could be performed, however great the distance, and 
the words are entirely consistent with that idea. If he was to be 
immersed, he must, of necessity, arise from his prostrate or sitting 
position for that purpose. If he was to be sprinkled, he might as 
well have remained, as candidates for that ceremony now commonly 
do, upon his knees. 

17-2.1. After this brief account of his course of persecution and his 
conversion, he advances to the events which occurred upon his return 
to Jerusalem, and which led to that peculiar ministry that had ex- 
cited the hatred of his hearers. (17) " And it came to pass, xuhen I 
returned to Jerusalem, and icas praying in the temple, that I was in a 
trance, (18) and saw him saying to me, Make haste, and depart quickly 
out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive your testimony concerning me. 
(19) And I said, Lord, they know that I was imprisoning and beating 
in every synagogue those who believe on thee, (20) and when the blood of 
thy witness, Stephen, was shed, I myself was standing by, and consenting 
to his death, and guarding the raiment of those who slew him. (21) And 
he said to me, Depart, for I will send you far hence to the Gentiles." 

By allowing Paul to speak, Lysias expected to learn something 
about the charges against him, supposing that he would address him- 
self immediately and strictly to a defense. What must have been 
his surprise, then, to hear him, after asking the people to hear his 
defense, proceed with a narrative, the bearing of which upon the case 
was so obscure? It must be confessed that the speech afforded very 
little of the light that he was seeking; and even to men who are 
better prepared to understand it than he, it is still a source of aston- 
ishment. Here is a man in the hands of a heathen soldiery, with a 
prison-door opening behind him, and before him a mob thirsting for 
his blood, whom to appease would save him from prison, and, perhaps, 
from death, yet appearing to be utterly oblivious of the danger which 
surrounded him, and though permitted to speak, making not the 
slightest effort to obtain release. He could most truthfully have 
denied bringing Greeks' into the temple, or speaking improperly of 
the people, the law, or that holy place; but he was so far elevated 
above all selfish considerations, that he desired no vindication of 
himself not involving a vindication of the cause he was pleading. 
He saw before him a deluded multitude rushing blindly to destruction, 
and though they were thirsting for his own blood, he pitied them, 
and resolved to give them light. Under the smart of the bruises they 
had inflicted on him, and amid their wild outcries, he remembered 



ACTS XXII: 22-29. 



265 



when he once took part in similar mobs, and the blood of Stephen 
rose up before his vision. This enabled him to excuse their rage, 
and, as the vision of Christ glorified, which he had witnessed on the 
road to Damascus, had changed him from a persecutor to a disciple, 
he resolved to try its effect upon them. He did not altogether mis- 
calculate its power; for they listened to the whole account of his 
conversion with profound attention. The narrative demonstrated the 
divine authority of Jesus, and enabled Paul to assume, as a basis for 
his further argument, that it was proper to do whatever he might 
command. He then proceeds to account for his going to the Gentiles. 
It was not my own choice, for I desired to stay in Jerusalem. But 
the Lord commanded me in a vision to leave the city. I even re- 
monstrated against his decision, when he peremptorily commanded, 
"Depart, for I will send you far hence to the Gentiles." 

22-24. When he reached this point in his discourse, he appeared 
to the mob about to vindicate the course which they condemned as 
criminal, instead of apologizing for it, and their rage was renewed. 
(22) " Now they heard him up to this word, then raised their voices and 
said, Away with such a fellow from the earth ! For it is not fit that he 
should live. (23) And as they were shouting, and tossing up their gar- 
ments, and casting dust into the air, (24) the chiliarch commanded him 
to be led into the castle, saying that he should be examined by scourging, 
in order that he might know on what account they cried out so against 
him." The idea of scourging a man who is assailed by a mob, to 
make him confess the cause for which he is assailed, is most abhor- 
rent to all proper sense of justice, yet it prevailed in the most enlight- 
ened heathen nations of antiquity. Rome, it is true, exempted from 
its effects all who enjoyed the rights of citizenship; but the existence 
of such a distinction, in a matter in which all human beings should 
have equal rights, is a further proof of their ignorance of the true 
principles of public justice. To the enlightening and rectifying in- 
fluence of Christianity, modern nations are indebted for many happy 
changes in jurisprudence. 

25-29. When Paul was led within the castle, the executioner made 
immediate preparation for his cruel work. (25) " And as he was 
bending him forward with the straps* Paul said to the centurion, who 
was standing by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, 
and uncondemned? (26) When the centurion heard this, he went and 
told the chiliarch, saying, Take heed what you are about to do, for this 
man is a Roman. (27) Then the chiliarch came and said to him, Tell 
me, are you a Roman ? And he said, Yes. (28) And the chiliarch 
answered, With a great sum I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said, 
But I was born so. (29) Then they who were about to examine him 
immediately departed from him; and the chiliarch was alarmed, when he 
knew that he ivas a Roman, and that he had -bound him." Previous to 
applying the scourge, the victim was bent forward upon a reclining 
post, to which he was bound by straps. It was this binding which 
caused the alarm of the chiliarch, and not the binding of his arms 
with chains. The latter was legal, and hence Paul remained so 
bound,f but the former was illegal. It was just at the critical moment, 

* lor the correctness of this rendering see Bloonifield, in loco, f Acts xxii : 30 ; xxvi : 29, 

23 



266 



ACTS XXII: 30; XXIII: 1-6. 



when he was bent forward upon the post, and the straps were being 
adjusted, that the quiet assertion of citizenship caused his release, 
and struck terror into the heart of the officer. Notwithstanding this 
exemption was extended only to a favored few, we can but admire 
the majesty of a law, which, in a remote province, and within the 
walls of a prison, suddenly released a prisoner from the whipping- 
post, by the simple declaration, "I am a Roman citizen!" 

30. Lysias was disposed to do his duty, but he experienced great 
difficulty in deciding what it was. He had first inquired of the mob; 
had then heard a speech from Paul; and had now gone as far as he 
dared toward the trial by scourging; yet he knew nothing more about 
the charges against his prisoner than he did at first. He determined 
to make one more effort. (30) " On the next day, desiring to know the 
certainty as to what he was accused of by the Jews, he released him from 
his bonds, and commanded the high priests and the whole Sanhedrim to 
come together, and brought Paul down, and placed him before them." 

XXIII: 1, 2. No sooner had the prisoner and the Sanhedrim come 
face to face, than the chiliarch must have perceived that he waa 
again to be disappointed in his efforts to understand the case; for, 
instead of preferring formal charges against Paul, the proceedings 
were opened by calling upon him to defend himself. (1) '.* Then Paul, 
looking earnestly on the Sanhedrim, said : I have lived in all good con- 
science before God until this day. (2) Then the high priest Ananias 
commanded those who stood by him, to smite him in the mouth." No 
doubt the blow was as prompt as the word. The interruption was 
as unexpected as it was exasperating. 

3-5. For once in the history of his persecutions, the provocation 
was too great for Paul, and found vent in a burst of anger. (3) 
" Then said Paul to him, God shall smite thee, thou whitewashed wall 
And do you sit to judge me according to the law, and command me to be 
smitten contrary to the law ? (4) But those who were standing by said, 
Do you revile God's high priest 1 (5) Paul said, I did not know, breth- 
ren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak 
evil of the ruler of thy people." The flash of anger was but moment- 
ary. No sooner were the words spoken than his habitual self-control 
regained its ascendency. He frankly admits that he had done wrong, 
but excuses himself by the fact that he knew not that it was the high 
priest. If he had been disposed to further excuse himself, by urging 
that the high priest deserved all he had said of him, his plea would 
have been true, but insufficient. For how can we return good for 
evil, if we return to men their deserts? It were well if his example 
should be imitated by all disciples who meet with injustice at the 
hands of their rulers. 

6-10. The presence in which Paul stood was not unfamiliar to him. 
He doubtless remembered the faces of many in the Sanhedrim, and 
was intimately acquainted with the party feelings which often dis- 
tracted their councils, and which had been known to stain the streets 
of Jerusalem with blood.* Seeing that they were determined not to 
do him justice, he resolved to take advantage of their party feuds in 
order to secure his own safety. (6) u But when Paul knew that on* 
* Euphall, Post Biblical History of the Jews, vol. 2. p. 132. 



ACTS XXIII: 7-11. 



267 



part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhe- 
drim, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning 
the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And 
when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees 
and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. (8) For the Saddu- 
cees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But the Phari- 
sees confess both. (9) And there arose a great outcry ; and the scribes, 
who were of the Pharisees party, arose and contended, saying, We find no 
evil in this man. And if an angel or a spirit has spoken to him, let us 
not fight against God. (10) And there being a great dissension, the 
chiliarch, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded 
the soldiers to go down and take him by force from their midst, and lead 
him into the castle. 1 ' It will be observed, that in stating the difference 
between the two parties, Luke uses the term both when the reference 
is to three specifications, viz. : resurrection, angel, and spirit. This 
arose, no doubt, from the fact that the three specifications are really 
combined in two, as the existence of angels or spirits involves but 
the one question of the existence of purely spiritual beings. 

Under ordinary circumstances, it is not probable that so violent a 
dissension could have been so easily excited. The circumstance is 
indicative of an unusual exasperation of the parties just preceding 
this event. Such a state of things, combined with the complete 
agreement declared by Paul with the Pharisees on the points at 
issue, naturally inclined them to favor his release. He declared this 
agreement in strong terms, asserting not only that he was a Pharisee, 
but the son of a Pharisee, and that it was for the hope peculiar to the 
party that he was arraigned as a criminal. They saw that the estab- 
lishment of his doctrine would certainly be the ruin of the opposing 
sect, and losing sight, for a moment, of its effects upon their own 
party; forgetting, too, the ill-founded charge against Paul, in refer- 
ence to the law and the temple, they declared that they could find no 
fault in the man. Perhaps, also, the awkward position they were in 
with reference to the proof of those charges rendered them somewhat 
willing to find an excuse for admitting his innocence. But the slight- 
est hint, on their part, of his innocence, was sufficient to arouse the 
Sadducees, because they saw that it was prompted chiefly by hatred 
to themselves. On the part of the Sadducees, the two most violent 
passions to which they were subject, hatred toward the disciples and 
jealousy toward the Pharisees, combined to swell the uproar which 
broke up the deliberations of the assembly. Paul was near being a 
victim to the storm which he had raised, when the Roman soldiery 
came to his rescue. Lysias was once more disappointed in his efforts 
to learn the truth about his case, and must have been in greater 
perplexity than ever, as he commanded the soldiers to lead him back 
into the castle. 

11. If we had some epistle from Paul's pen, written at this time, 
it would tell of great distress and despondency; for such a state of 
mind is clearly indicated by an event which now transpired. (11) 
u And the night following, the Lord stood, by him and said, Take cour- 
age, Paul, for as you have testified concerning me in Jerusalem, so you. 
must also testify in Home." It is not to be presumed that this 



268 



ACTS XXIII: 12-16. 



personal appearance of the Lord to encourage him occurred when it 
was not needed, or when encouragement could be supplied in an 
ordinary way. It is quite certain, therefore, that Paul's spirit was 
greatly burdened that night. The long-dreaded bonds and afflictions, 
which had hung like a dark cloud before him on his journey from 
Corinth to Jerusalem, had now at last fallen upon him. Thus far, 
since his arrest, he may have been cheered by the hope that the 
fervent prayers of himself and many brethren, which, in anticipation 
of these calamities, had been urged at the throne of favor for months 
past, would prove effectual for his deliverance, and for the realiza- 
tion of his long-cherished desire to visit Rome.* But his speeches 
"before the mob and the Sanhedrim had only exasperated his ene- 
mies, who were now, more than ever, intent upon his destruction ; 
and his jailer, though disposed to do justice, knew not what to do 
but to keep him in prison. In whatever direction he could look, 
prison walls or a bloody grave stood before him, and hedged up his 
way, either to Rome or to any other field of future usefulness. Eut 
just at the proper moment to save him from despair, the solemn 
assurance is given, that his long-continued prayers would yet be 
answered, and he should preach the Word in Rome as he had done 
in Jerusalem. In tracing the fulfillment of this promise, we shall 
witness a remarkable illustration of the workings of providence in 
answer to prayer. 

12—16. The light did not immediately dawn upon his prospects, but 
the darkness continued for a while to grow deeper. (12) "And vjhen 
it was day some of the Jews made a conspiracy, and bound themselves 
under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had 
killed Paul. (13) And there were more than forty who made this agree- 
ment. (14) They went to the high priests and elders, and said, We have 
bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing till we have 
hilled Paul. (15) Now then, do you, with the Sanhedrim, notify the chi- 
liarch to bring him down to you to-morrow, as though you would inquire 
more accurately concerning him, and we, before he comes near, are ready 
to slay him. (16) But the son of Paul's sister heard of their lying in 
wait, and came and entered into the castle, and told Paul." It is difficult 
for a conspiracy of this kind, requiring the consultation of so many 
persons, to be concocted and executed with perfect secrecy. Especially 
is it so when the intended victim is one about whom the whole com- 
munity is, at the time, intensely excited. It is not at all surprising, 
therefore, that some of Paul's many friends heard of it, and that his 
nephew undertook the dangerous task of communicating it to him. 
He at once saw, that, notwithstanding the assurance of safety given 
the night before, the danger of his situation was more alarming than 
ever. The chiliarch could not well refuse to grant so reasonable a 
request; and if it be granted, his doom is sealed. If the Pharisees 
who had befriended him in the Sanhedrim had not become indifferent 
to his fate, they had been outwitted, so that the Sadducees were about 
to make the request in the name of the whole Sanhedrim without con- 
sulting them. 

17-22. A moment's reflection was sufficient to show Paul that his 

* Bom. xv : 



ACTS XXIII: 17-30. 



269 



only hope of safety was in the chiliarch, and, therefore, he at once had 
the facts communicated to him. (17) " Then Paul called to him one of 
the centurions, and said, Lead this young man to the chiliarch ; for he has 
something to tell him. (18) He then took him and led him to the chili- 
arch, and said, The prisoner, Paul, called me to him and requested me to 
lead this young man to you, who has something to say to you. (19) The 
chiliarch took him by the hand, and drawing aside in private, asked him. 
What is it that you have to tell me? (20) And he said, The Jeios have 
agreed to request you that you bring down Paul into the Sanhedrim to- 
morrow, as though they would inquire more accurately concerning him. 
(21) But do not be persuaded by them; for there lie in wait for him 
more than forty men of them, who have bound themselves under a curse- 
neither to eat nor drink until they have slain him. Anal they are now pre- 
pared, expecting a promise from you. (22) Then the chiliarch dismissed 
the yovng man, charging him to tell no one that you have made known these 
things to me." The injunction of secrecy was prompted in part by a 
desire for the young man's safety; but chiefly by an unwillingness that 
the Jews should know the real cause of the step he was about to take. 
If they should discover that their machinations could influence hia 
policy, they might be emboldened to give him further trouble. 

23-30. There were at least three lines of policy between which the 
chiliarch could have chosen. If he had been disposed to gratify the 
Jews, he might have given Paul up to their malice, without proba- 
bility of being known to his superiors as accessory to the murder. If 
he had preferred to defy their power, and display his own, he might 
have sent him down to the Sanhedrim under a strong guard. Or if 
he desired to protect Paul, yet to avoid giving unnecessary offense to 
the Jews, he might send him away that night before their request was 
laid before him. It reflects credit upon his character that he chose 
the course which both justice and prudence dictated. (23) u And he 
called to him two of the centurions, and said, Make ready two hundred 
soldiers, and seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen, to go to Ccesa- 
rea at the third hour of the night, (24) and provide beasts, in order that 
they may mount Paul and take him to Felix the governor. (25) And he 
wrote a letter in this form : (26) Claudius Lysias to the most excellent 
governor Felix, greeting. (27) This man was seized by the Jews, and was 
about to be killed by them, when I came with the soldiery and rescued him, 
having learned that he was a Roman. (28) And desiring to know the 
cause for which they accused him, I led him down into their Sanhedrim, 
(29) and found him accused concerning questions of their law, but halving 
nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. (30) And it being 
disclosed to me that a plot against the man was about to be executed by the 
Jews, I immediately sent him to you, commanding his accusers to say before 
you what they have against him. Farewell." But for one misrepresenta- 
tion in this letter, there would be nothing discreditable to Lysias in this 
whole affair. He had acted like a just and prudent man in managing 
a difficult case; but in reporting to his superior, lie so states the facts 
as to give himself credit to which he was not entitled. He states that 
his first rescue of Paul was prompted by the fact that he was a Ro- 
man citizen; whereas, in truth, he knew nothing of Paul's citizenship 
•till after he had seized him and had prepared to scourge him. Thua 



270 



ACTS XXIII: 31-35. 



a motive was claimed which was not real, and a fault which he had 
committed was suppressed. When we remember, however, that it is 
a common fault with military commanders to make the most favora- 
ble reports of their achievements, we are not disposed to give Lysias 
a low rank among his compeers for veracity. 

The statement that he had commanded Paul's accusers to say before 
Felix what they had against him, was not strictly true ; for, at the time 
of writing, he had given no such command. But it was not intended 
to deceive the governor; for he intended to issue the order before the 
letter could be received. When this order was issued, the Jews were 
bitterly disappointed, and the forty conspirators had a prospect of a 
good long fast. They naturally felt some ill-will toward Lysias, as we 
shall see manifested hereafter,* for snatching their victim out of 
their hands. 

The letter also shows, that though Lysias could not understand the 
exact nature of the charges against Paul, he knew that they had ref- 
erence to the Jewish law, and was satisfied that what they accused 
him of was not worthy either of death or of imprisonment. Under 
this conviction, if he had not been constrained to send him away for 
safety, he would, probably, have released him. 

31-35. (31) " Then the soldiers, according to what was commanded them, 
took Paul and conducted him by night to Antipatris, (32) and, on the 
next dag, they returned to the castle, leaving the horsemen to go forward 
with him. (33) They went to Casarea, delivered the epistle to the gov- 
ernor, and presented Paul before him. (34) And when the governor read 
the epistle, he asked of what province he was, and, learning that he was 
from Cicilia, (35) he said, I will hear you when your accusers are 
also come. And he commanded him to be kept under guard in Herod 's 
palace." This was a palace erected by Herod the Great, who built 
Caesarea.f 

When the troops guarding Paul had passed beyond the immediate 
vicinity of Jerusalem, there was no further use for the powerful force 
of infantry ; hence the return of the four hundred soldiers and spear- 
men. The distinction between these two classes is, that those called 
soldiers belonged to the regular Roman legions, while the spearmen 
were light-armed troops attached to the legions. 

This incident. in Paul's history has been made to bear apart in the con- 
troversy as to Ayhether military service is compatible with Christianity. 
It is urged that Paul could not consistently accept the services of an 
army of four hundred and seventy men to protect his life from 
a Jewish mob, unless he acknowledged the rightfulness of military 
service. But the facts in the case are not suitable to the argument. 
He did not, in the exercise of his freedom, voluntarily call for mili- 
tary interference; but the military had already interfered, without 
consulting his wishes, and taken violent possession of him ; and his 
request was, that they should exercise the power which they had 
chosen to assume, for his safety rather than for his destruction. If a 
man were confined within the den of a gang of robbers, he might, 
with all propriety, request them to keep him out of the reach of 
another gang who were seeking his life. Such a request would be no 



Acts xxiv : 7. 



f Jos. Ant. xv : 9, 6. 



ACTS XXIV: 1-12. 



271 



more an indorsement of highway robbery than Paul's request, 
expressed through his nephew, was an indorsement of military serv- 
ice. There is not an instance on record in which the apostles ever 
called for military interference in their times of suffering and perse- 
cution. 

XXIV : 1. When the Jews were commanded by Lysias to pre- 
sent their accusation before Felix, though disappointed in their first 
plot, they still hoped to accomplish his destruction, and made no delay 
in following up the prosecution. (1) "Now, after Jive days, Ananias 
the high priest, with the elders and a certain orator -named Tertullus, 
came doivn, and informed the governor against Paul." It is most natural 
to count these five days from the time that Paul left Jerusalem, as 
that was the date at which the Jews were informed by Lysias of the 
transfer of the case. 

2-9. The orator, Tertullus, was employed to plead the case before 
Felix, and the high priest and elders appeared as witnesses. (2) " And 
when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying : (3) Seeing 
that by you we have attained to great tranquillity, and a prosperous ad- 
ministration is effected for this nation by your foresight, in every respect 
and in every place, we accept it, most excellent Felix, with all thankful- 
ness. (4) But that I may not delay you too long, I entreat you to hear 
us, in your clemency, a few words. (5) For we have found this man a 
pest, exciting sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a 
ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. (6) He also attempted to pro- 
fane the temple ; when we seized him, and wished to judge him according 
to our own law. (7) But Lysias the chiliarch came, and with great 
violence snatched him out of our hands, (8) and commanded his accusers 
to come before you. From him you yourself may be able, by examination, 
to obtain knowledge of all these things of which we accuse him. (9) And 
the Jews assented, saying that these things were so." The complimentary 
words with which this speech is introduced were not undeserved by 
Felix; for he had restored tranquillity to the country, when it was 
disturbed, first by hordes of robbers ; afterward by organized bands 
of Assassins, and, more recently, by that Egyptian for whom Lysias 
at first mistook Paul.* In suppressing all these disturbances, his 
administration had been prosperous. 

The accusation against Paul, sustained by the testimony of the 
Jews, contained three specifications. It charged him, first, with ex- 
citing the Jews to sedition; second, with being the ringleader of the 
sect of Nazarenes; third, with profaning the temple. Tertullus also 
took occasion to vent his indignation against Lysias, for interfering by 
violence, as he falsely alleged against him, with the judicial proceed- 
ings of the Sanhedrim. Finally, he asserts that Felix would be able, 
if he would examine Lysias, to gain from his lips a knowledge of all 
of which they were now informing him. 

10-21. (10) " Then Paul answered, {the governor nodding to him to 
speak): Knowing that you have been for many years a judge for this nation, 
I do the more cheerfully defend my self : (11) for you are able to know that 
there are not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. 
(12) And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor about the 

# Jus. Ant. B. 20, cb. viii : par. 5. Wars, B. 13. 



272 



ACTS XXIV: 13-22 



city, did they find me disputing with any one, or exciting sedition among 
the multitude; (13) neither are they able to prove the things of which 
they accuse me. (14) But this I confess to you, that according to the 
way which they call a sect, I so worship the God of my fathers, believing 
all things which are in the law, and those written by the prophets, (15) 
having hope toward, God, which they themselves also entertain, that there 
is to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. (16) 
And in this do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of 
offense toward God and man. (17) Now after many years, I came to 
present alms to my nation, and offerings, (18) in the midst of which, 
certain Jews from Asia found me in the temple, purified, not with a 
multitude, nor with tumult. (19) They ought to be here before you and 
accuse me, if they have any thing against me. (20) Or let these them- 
selves say if they found any wrong in me when I was standing before the 
Sanhedrim, (21) except in reference to this one sentence which I uttered 
when standing among them, Concerning the resurrection of the dead, I am 
called in question by you this day." 

This speech contains a distinct reply to each specification made by 
Tertullus. In answer to the charge of stirring up sedition, he shows 
first, that it had been only twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem. 
As it had now been five days since he left there, and he had been in 
prison one day previous to leaving, his previous stay there could have 
been only six days, which would have afforded no suffcient time for 
stirring up sedition. Moreover, they could not prove that he was 
engaged even in disputation with any one, in the temple, in the syna- 
gogues, or in any part of the city. As to being a ringleader of the 
sect of the Nazarenes, he frankly confesses that he belongs to what 
they call a sect: yet he believes all the law and the prophets, hopes 
for a resurrection of the dead, and is habitually struggling to lead a 
conscientious life. Finally, in reference to the charge of profaning 
the temple, implying disrespect for the Jewish people, he declares 
that the very object of his visit to Jerusalem was to bear alms to 
the people; and that when the Jews from Asia seized him in the 
temple, he was purified, and engaged about alms-giving, and the 
offerings of the temple. In conclusion, he notes the significant fact, 
that those who 'first seized him, and knew what he was doing, were 
not there to testify; while he challenges those who were present to 
state a single act of his that was wrong, unless it were the very heinous 
offense of declaring that he believed, with the great mass of the Jews, 
in the resurrection of the dead. This last point was made, and pre- 
sented in the ironical form which it bears, in order to show Felix that 
it was party jealousy which instigated his Sadducee prosecutors. 

22. His defense, though he had no witnesses present to prove his 
statements, had the desired effect upon Felix. (22) " And when Felix 
heard these things, knowing more accurately concerning that way, he put 
them off, and said, When Lysias the chiliarch comes down, I will thor- 
oughly examine the matters between you." In this decision he took Ter- 
tullus at his word; for he had already said that he could learn all 
about the affair by examining Lysias. But the decision is attributed 
to his "knowing more accurately concerning that way," showing that 
he had come to the same conclusion with Lysias, that Paul was 



ACTS XXIV: 23-27. 



273 



accused merely about questions of the Jewish law," 5 *"- and not of crime 
against Roman law. 

23. When the Jews were dismissed, if Felix had possessed a strict 
regard for justice, he would have released Paul. As it was, he only 
relaxed the rigor of his previous confinement. (23) 11 And he com- 
manded the centurion that Paul should be guarded, but have relaxation^ 
and to forbid none of his friends to minister to him or visit him." His 
confinement was now the least rigorous which was considered com- 
patible with safe-keeping. He was under what was called the military 
custody, being placed in charge of a soldier, whose left arm was 
chained to Paul's right, and who was responsible with his own life 
for the safety of his prisoner. The guards were relieved at regular 
intervals, and the "relaxation" allowed Paul was, probably, an occa- 
sional release from the chain. f 

24. "Now, after some days. Felix came, with his wife Drusilla, who 
was a Jewess, and sent for Paid, and heard him concerning the faith in 
Christ^ Drusilla, according to Josephus, was a daughter of Herod 
Agrippa, whose persecutions of the apostles, and miserable death, 
we have considered in commenting on the twelfth chapter. She was 
a woman of remarkable beauty, the lawful wife of Azizus, king of 
Emesa, but was now living in adulterous intercourse with Felix. J 
Concerning Felix, Tacitus testifies, that "with every kind of cruelty 
and lust, he exercised the authority of a king with the temper of a 
slave, "jj 

25. Under the summons to speak concerning the faith in Christ, 
Paul was at liberty to choose the special topic of discourse, and did 
so with direct reference to the character of his hearers. (25) 11 And 
as he reasoned concerning righteousness and temperance, and judgment to 
come, Felix, being full of fear, answered, Go your way for this time, and 
when I have a convenient season, I will call for you." The common 
version, " Felix trembled," may be true, but it is claiming more for the 
effect of Paul's discourse than is asserted by Luke. He was "filled 
with fear," which shows that Paul addressed" him on these appropri- 
ate topics, not in a spirit of bravado, but in that earnest and solemn 
strain which alone can penetrate the heart. This feeling was the 
beginning necessary to a change of life; but lust and ambition smoth- 
ered the kindling fires of conscience, and the common excuse of 
alarmed but impenitent sinners was urged to get rid of the too faith- 
ful monitor. It is a sad warning to all who thus procrastinate, that 
to neither Felix nor Drusilla did the season ever come which they 
thought convenient to listen to such preaching. Felix was soon dis- 
missed in disgrace from his office; and Drusilla, with a son by Felix, 
perished in that eruption of Mount Vesuvius which ingulfed the cities 
of Pompeii and Herculaneum.§ 

26. 27. True to the character which Tacitus attributes to Felix, 
Luke adds that (26) " Hoping also that money would be given to him by 
Paul, so that he would release him, he therefore sent for him the oftener, 
and conversed with him. (27) But after two years Felix received Fortius 
Festus as a successor; and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left 

* Comp. xxiii : 29. i Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 288. t Ant. XX : 17. 

| Hist., B. v, ch. 9. g Jos. Ant. xx ! 17. 



274 



ACTS XXV: 1-8. 



Paul bound." Having learned, from Paul's own lips, that he had 
been up to Jerusalem to bear alms from distant Churches to the poor, 
and knowing something, perhaps, of the general liberality of the dis- 
ciples toward one another, he could have no doubt, judging them 
according to the usage of the age, that they would be willing to pur- 
chase Paul's freedom at a high price. That it was not done, shows 
that the disciples had too elevated a standard of morality to buy 
from a corrupt judge release from even unjust and protracted impris- 
onment. 

These two years, if we judge from the silence of history, were the 
most inactive of Paul's career. There are no epistles which bear this 
date ; and though his friends and brethren had free access to him, we 
have no recorded effects of their interviews with him. The only mo- 
ments in which he emerges into our view, from the obscurity of his 
prison, are those in which he appeared before his judges. We shall, 
on this account, contemplate his conduct on these occasions with the 
deeper interest. 

XXV: 1-5. The long imprisonment of Paul seems not in the least 
to have moderated the hatred of his enemies; but upon the change 
of governorship they renewed their efforts for his destruction. (1) 
u Now when Festus had come into the province, after thr-ee days he 
went up from C&sarea to Jerusalem. (2) And the high priest and the, 
chief men of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, 
(3) requesting as a favor against him, that he would send for him to Je- 
rusalem, preparing an ambush to Mil him on the way. (4) But Festus 
answered that Paul should be kept in Cwsarea, and that he himself 
would shortly depart thither. (5) Let the influential men among you, 
said he, go down with me, and if there is any thing wrong in this man, 
accuse him." He further told them, as we learn from his speech to 
Agrippa,"* that it was contrary to Eoman law to condemn a man to 
death before he had an opportunity for defense, face to face with his 
accusers. All this shows that Festus was, at this time, disposed to see 
justice done. He, of course, knew nothing of the plot to waylay Paul : 
for they kept this purpose concealed, while they professed another. 

6-8. He made no delay in ..granting them the promised hearing. 
(6) "And when he had remained among them not more than ten days, he 
went down to Ccesarea, and the next day sat upon his judgment-seat, and 
commanded Paul to be brought. (7) And when he' arrived, the Jews who 
had come down from Jerusalem stood around, bringing many and heavy 
charges against Paul, which they were not able to prove : (8) while he 
answered in defense, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against 
the temple, nor against Oozsar have I at all offended" The specifica- 
tions embraced in this defense are the same as in the defense against 
the speech of Tertullus before Felix, showing that the charges were 
Btill the same. Being a "ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes" was 
his sin against the law; the false imputation of taking Greeks into 
the temple, his sin against that holy place; and the excitement of se- 
dition among the Jews, his sin against Csesar. - In the last specifica- 
tion, reference was had to the mobs which the Jews were in the habit 
of exciting against him, whose crimes were thus charged upon him. 

* Verse 16. 



* 



ACTS XXV: 9-13. 



275 



9. The accusers not being able to prove their charges, and the pris- 
oner having plead not guilty to each specification, he should have 
been unconditionally released. But Festus, notwithstanding the fair- 
ness of his answer to their demands in Jerusalem, was now disposed 
to yield to the clamor of the Jews. (9) But Festus] wishing to do the 
Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, Are you willing to go up to 
Jerusalem, there to be judged concerning these things before meV 1 It is 
possible that Festus still knew nothing of the plot to murder Paul 
by the roadside; but he knew that the Jews desired his death, and 
he here exhibited a willingness to give them the opportunity which 
they desired. 

10, 11. The purpose of the Jews was well understood by Paul. He 
remembered the purpose of the similar request preferred before Clau- 
dius Lysias, and perceived that his only safety was in frustrating their 
present attempt. Fortunately, the very imprisonment which exposed 
him to danger also furnished the means of his safety. (10) Then Paul 
said, I am standing at Ccesar s judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged. 
To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you yourself very well know. (11) 
If I am a wrong-doer, and have committed any thing worthy of death, I re- 
fuse not to die. But if there is nothing in these things of which they 
accuse me, no man is able to deliver me up to them. I appeal to Caesar." 
This app'eal every Roman citizen had the right to make, and it required 
a transfer of the case to the imperial court in Rome. The statement. 
u I stand at Caesar's judgment-seat," was intended to justify him in 
refusing to be taken for trial away from Csesarea, which was the ap- 
pointed capital of the province where the courts were properly held. 

His appeal to Caesar, like his communication to Lysias, which secured 
his rescue in Jerusalem, is claimed as a sanction of military power. 
But, like that, it is only a demand made upon the military power 
which was holding him in unjust confinement, not to add to this in- 
justice the crime of yielding him up to assassination. It is not an 
appeal from a free man to military power for protection; neither was 
there any necessity for the use of violence in granting his request on 
either occasion. 

12. This appeal put an end to the trial, as it did to the murderous 
hopes of Paul s enemies. (12) " Then Festus, having conferred with his 
council, answered, You have appealed to Ccesar ; to Gazsar you shall go. 11 
The conference with his advisers was probably in reference to Paul's 
right to make the appeal ; for he would hardly have dared, if the right 
was unquestioned, to hesitate about allowing it. His answer indicates 
some irritation under the severe rebuke of Paul's last speech. 

13. The custom of extending congratulations to men newly inducted 
into high office, which has prevailed in every age of the world, led to 
the next important incidents of Paul's confinement in Ca3sarea. (13) 
" Now when some days had. passed, King Agrippa and Bernice came to 
Caisarea to salute Festus." This Agrippa was the son of the Herod 
who murdered the Apostle James. He was, at this time, king of Chal- 
cis, but afterward of Calilee.* Bernice was his sister. She had been 
married to her uncle, Herod, former king of Chalcis, but he had died, 
and she was still a widow. She afterward married Polemo, king of 

* Jos. Ant. xx : 7, 1 ; and 8, 4, 



276 



ACTS XXV: 14-24. 



Cilicia.* Like nearly all the Herod family, both male and female, 
she was licentious and ambitious. But she and Agrippa, being Jews 
by birth, were better able to understand Paul's case than rFestus. 

14-21. Festus knew that the charges against Paul had reference to 
the Jewish law; but he still had not a sufficient understanding of the 
case to report it intelligibly to the emperor, as he now had to do, under 
Paul's appeal. He determined, therefore, to obtain the benefit of 
Agrippa 's more familiar acquaintance with Jewish affairs. (14) "And 
when they had passed many days there, Festus set forth before the king 
the facts concerning Paid, saying. There is a certain man left a prisoner 
by Felix, (15) concerning whom, when I was in Jerusalem, the high priests 
and elders of the Jews informed me, demanding judgment against him. 
(16) To whom I answered, that it is not the custom of the Romans to de- 
liver any man up to death before the accused has the accusers face to face, 
and has an opportunity for defense concerning the accusation. (17) Then 
they came thither, and I, making no delay, sat on the judgment-seat the 
next^day, and commanded the man to be brought: (18) concerning whom, 
when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such things as I 
supposed. (19) But they had against him certain questions concerning 
their own demon-worship, and concerning a certain Jesus who had died, 
whom Paul affirmed to be alive. (20) And I, being perplexed in the dispute 
about this matter, asked if he wished to go to Jerusalem, and there be 
judged concerning these things. (21) But Paul made an appeal to be 
kept for the examination of Augustus, and I commanded him to be kept 
till I shall send him to Ccesar." From this speech it appears that the 
perplexity of Festus was not so much in reference to the main issue 
between the Jews and Paul, as in reference to the bearing which the 
case had upon Eoman law. Pie discovered that the main issue be- 
tween the parties had reference to that "Jesus who had died, and 
whom Paul affirmed to be alive." This Jesus being claimed by Paul 
as an object of worship, he supposed it was an instance of that demon- 
worship, or worship of dead men deified, which was common among 
the Greeks and Romans. It is for this reason that he characterizes 
all their charges against him as "certain questions concerning their 
demon-worsMp." By overlooking the exact mental status of the speaker, 
and the etymological force of the term deicideifiovia, commentators have 
failed to give it the proper meaning both here and in chapter xvii: 22. 

22. It is not probable that this was the first time that Agrippa had 
heard either of Paul or of Jesus. No doubt he had heard much of 
both, and had some curiosity to hear more. The singular circum- 
stances which now surrounded Paul added much to his curiosity, and 
afforded the means of gratifying it. (22) 11 Then Agrippa said to Fes- 
tus, I wish to hear the man myself. To-morrow, said he, you shall hear 
him." 

23-27. (23) " On the next day, therefore, Agrippa and Bernice having 
come with much pomp, and entered into the audience-chamber , with the 
chiliarchs and the prominent men of the city, at the command of Festus 
Paul was brought forth. (24) Then Festus said, King Agrippa, and all 
men who are here present with us, you see the man concerning whom all 
the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both in Jerusalem and here t 
* Jos. Ant. xix : 9, 1 ; xx : 7, 3. 



ACTS XXV: 25-27; XXVI: 1-5. 



277 



crying out that he ought not to live any longer. (25) Now I perceived that 
he had done nothing worthy of death ; but he himself having appealed to 
C&sar, I determined to send him, (26) concerning whom I have nothing 
certain to write to my lord. Wherefore, I have brought him before you, 
and especially before thee, King Agrippa, that, after examination had, I 
may have something to write. (27) For it seems to me unreasonable to 
send a prisoner, and not to designate the charges against him." Festus 
belonged to one peculiar class of men, who found it difficult to decide 
how to treat Christians. The bigoted Jews, whose national prejudices 
were assailed by the new preachers, were prompt to decide that "they 
ought not to live any longer." The blind devotees of heathen wor- 
ship, like those in Philippi and Ephesus, were of the same opinion; 
especially when the new doctrine came into conflict with their worldly 
interests. The firm friend of impartial justice, such as Gallio, could 
easily see that they were unjustly persecuted. But to the skeptical 
politician, like Festus, who regarded all religion as a mere supersti- 
tious homage paid to dead heroes, and who aimed to so administer 
government as to be popular with the most powerful class of his 
subjects, it was a more difficult question. He saw clearly that Paul 
was guilty of nothing worthy of death or of bonds; therefore, he would 
not consent that the Jews should kill him; yet he was equally un- 
willing to offend them by releasin ghim. He was incapable, from 
his worldly and selfish nature, of appreciating Paul's noble devotion 
to the good of humanity, and equally unable to understand the en- 
mity of the Jews toward him. He must now, of necessity, send him 
to the emperor, but he confessed that he had no good reason to give 
the emperor for doing so, and was about to do an unreasonable act. 
In this predicament it was quite natural that he should call for the 
advice of Agrippa. 

XXVI: 1-3. Festus having stated the case, and the assembly being 
in waiting, the king assumed the presidency of the assembly. (1) 
" Then Agrippa said to Paul, You are permitted to speak for yourself. 
Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and offered his defense: (2) I think 
myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall defend myself this day be- 
fore you, touching all the things of which I am accused by the Jews; 
(3) especially as you are acquainted with all the customs and questions 
among the Jews. Wherefore, I beseech you to hear me patiently." It 
must ha^P been his left hand which he stretched forth as he began 
this exordium, for his right was chained to the soldier who guarded 
him.* The compliment to Agrippa for his acquaintance with Jewish 
customs and controversies was not undeserved. f It afforded Paul un- 
feigned gratification to know, that, after so many efforts to make him- 
self understood by such men as Lysias, Felix, and Festus, he was at 
length in the presence of one who could fully understand and appre- 
ciate his cause. 

4-8. After the exordium, he proceeds to state, first, his original posi- 
tion among the Jews, and to show that he was still true to the chief 
doctrine which he then taught. (4) u My manner of life from my youth, 
which was from the beginning among my own nation in Jerusalem, all the 
Jews know, (5) who knew me from the beginning, if they were willing to 



* Verao 29. 



f Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 294. 



273 



ACTS XXVI: 6-16. 



testify, that, according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Phar- 
isee. (6) Even now, it is for the hope of the promise made by God to 
the fathers, that J stand here to be judged; (7) to which promise our 
twelve tribes, by earnest worshiping night and. day, hope to attain. Con- 
cerning this hope, King Agrippa, I am. accused by the Jews. (8) What! 
Is it judged a thing incredible among you, that God should raise the 
dead f " The Pharisees were the least likely of all the Jewish sects to 
be unfaithful to Jewish institutions. It was, therefore, much in Paul's 
favor that he was able to call, even his enemies to witness that from 
his youth he had lived in the strict discipline of that sect. It was yet 
more so, to say that he was still a firm believer in the leading doc- 
trine of the party, and to reiterate the assertion made on two former 
occasions, that it was on account of the hope of a resurrection that 
he was accused.* This was not the avowed cause, but it was the real 
cause of their accusations; for the assumption that Christ had risen 
from the dead was the ground-work of all Jewish opposition and per- 
secution. He interprets the promise made by God to the fathers, by 
which he doubtless means the promise, " In thee and in thy seed shall 
all the families of the earth be blessed," as referring to the resurrec- 
tion, because that is the consummation of all the blessings of the gos- 
pel. He exposes the inconsistency of his enemies by observing, that 
it was even Jews who were accusing him of crime in demonstrating 
this great hope so cherished by the twelve tribes. Then, turning from 
Agrippa to the whole multitude,! ne as ks> with an air of astonishment, 
if they really deem it an incredible thing that God should raise the 
dead. If not, why should he be accused of crime for declaring that 
it had been done ? 

9-11. To still further illustrate his former standing among the Phar- 
isees, he describes his original relation toward the cause of Christ. 
(9) "J thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to 
the name of Jesus, the Nazarene, (10) vihich I also did in Jerusalem. 
Many of the saints I shut up in prison, liaving received authority from the 
high priests ; and when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them. 
(11) And in all the synagogues I punished them often, compelling them 
to blaspheme ; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them 
even to foreign cities." "With such a record as this, there was no room 
to suspect him of any such bias as would render him an easy or a 
willing convert to Christ. On the contrary, it must have appeared to 
Agrippa, and the whole audience, most astonishing that such a change 
could take place. Their curiosity to know what produced the change 
must have been intense, and he proceeds to gratify it, 

12-18. (12) " Whereupon, as I was going to Damascus, with authority 
and commission from the high priests, (13) at midday, 0 King, I saw in 
the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining 
around me and those who were journeying with me. (14) And when we 
had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking to me, and saying, in 
the Hebrew dialect, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard 
for you to kick against the goads. (15) And I said, Who art thou, lord? 
And he said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute. (16) But rise and stand 

* Before the Sanhedrim and before Felix. 

t Observe the plural number of the pronoun "you." Verae 8. 



ACTS XXVI: 17, 23. 



279 



upon your feet ; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to choose 
you for a minister and a witness of the things which you have seen, and 
of those in which I will appear to you; (17) delivering you from the peo- 
ple and the Gentiles, to whom I now send you (18) to open their eyes, to 
turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that 
they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among the sanctified by 
faith in me." On the supposition that Paul here spoke the truth, 
Agrippa saw that no prophet of old, not even Moses himself, had a 
more authoritative or unquestionable commission than he. Moreover, 
the same facts, if true, demonstrated, irresistibly, the resurrection and 
glorification of Jesus. As to the truth of the narrative, its essential 
features consisted in facts about which Paul could not be mistaken, 
and his unparalleled suffering, for more than twenty years, together 
with the chain even now upon his arm, bore incontestible evidence of 
his sincerity. But being an honest witness, and the facts such that he 
could not be mistaken, the facts themselves must be real. It is diffi- 
cult to conceive what stronger evidence the audience could have had 
in favor of Jesus, or what more triumphant vindication of the change 
which had taken place in Paul. 

19-21. By these facts the speaker proceeds to justify his change of 
position, and his subsequent career. (19) " Whereupon, King Agrippa, 
I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision ; (20) but announced, first to 
those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem, and in all the country of Judea, 
and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works 
suitable to repentance. (21) On account of these things the Jews seized 
me in the temple, and attempted to kill me." This is a more detailed 
statement of the cause of Jewish enmity, which had been more briefly 
expressed by the statement that it was concerning the hope of the res- 
urrection that he was accused. 

22, 23. That the Jews had not succeeded, with all their mobs, and 
conspiracies, and corruption of rulers, in destroying his life, was a mat- 
ter of astonishment, and Agrippa might well admit that it was owing 
to the protecting providence of God. (22) " Having, however, obtained 
help from God, I have stood until this day, testifying both to small and 
great, saying nothing else than those things which Moses and the prophets 
did say should be, (23) that the Christ should suffer, and that he first, by 
his resurrection from the dead, should show light to the people and to the 
Geyitiles." Here he assumes that, instead of dishonoring Moses, he and 
his brethren alone were teaching the things which both Moses and the 
prophets had foretold; that it was required, by their writings, that the 
Messiah should suffer and rise from the dead. 

By the statement that Christ first showed light to the people and 
the Gentiles by his resurrection, he must mean that he was the first to 
bring the subject into clear light, by an actual resurrection to glory; 
for there had already been some light upon it, as is proved by Paul's 
previous statement in reference to the hope to which the twelve tribes 
had been, in all their worship, seeking to attain. 

24. At this point in his speech, Paul was interrupted by Festus. It 
was a very strange speech in the ears of that dissolute heathen. It 
presented to him a man who from his youth had lived in strict devo- 



280 



ACTS XXVI: 24-29. 



tion to a religion whose chief characteristic was the hope of a resur- 
rection from the dead ; who had once persecuted to death his present 
friends, but had been induced to change his course by a vision from 
heaven ; and who, from that moment, had been enduring stripes, im- 
prisonment, and constant exposure to death, in his efforts to inspire 
men with his own hope of a resurrection. Such a career he could 
not reconcile with those maxims of ease or of ambition which he re- 
garded as the highest rule of life. Moreover, he saw this strange 
man, when called to answer to accusations of crime, appear to forget 
himself, and attempt to convert his judges rather than to defend him- 
self. There was a magnanimity of soul displayed in both the past 
and the present of his career, which was above the comprehension of 
the sensuous politician, and which he could not reconcile with sound 
reason. He seems to have forgotten where he was, and the decorum 
of the occasion, so deeply was he absorbed in listening to and think- 
ing of Paul. (24) u And as he offered these things in his defense, Festus 
cried, with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself. Much learning has 
made you mad." 

25. Paul saw at once, from the tone and manner of Festus, as well 
as from the admission of his great learning, that the charge of insanity 
was not intended as an insult; but that it was the sudden outburst of 
a conviction which had just seized the mind of the perplexed and 
astonished governor. His answer, therefore, was most respectful. (25) 
11 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth words 
of truth and soberness." He saw, however, that Festus was beyond the 
reach of conviction ; for a man who could see in the foregoing portion 
of this speech only the ravings of a madman, could not easily be 
reached by the argument, or touched by the pathos of the gospel. 

26, 27. In Agrippa Paul had a very different hearer. His Jewish 
education enabled him to appreciate Paul's arguments, and. to see re- 
peated, in that noble self-sacrifice which was an enigma to Festus, the 
heroism of the old prophets. As Paul turned away from Festus and 
fixed his eye upon the king, he saw the advantage which he had over 
his feelings, and determined to press it to the utmost. He continues: 
(26) u For the king understands concerning these things, to whom also I 
speak with freedom : for I am persuaded that none of these things are hid- 
den from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. (27) King 
Agrippa, do you believe the prophets ? I know that you believe." 

28. With matchless skill the apostle had brought his proofs to bear 
upon his principal hearer, and with the boldness which only those can 
feel who are determined upon success,, he pressed this direct appeal so 
unexpectedly, that the king, like Festus, was surprised into a full ex- 
pression of his feelings. (28) " Then Agrippa said to Paul, You almost 
persuade me to be a Christian." Under ordinary circumstances, such 
a confession would have struck the auditory with astonishment. But 
under the force of Paul's speech, there could not have been a generous 
soul present that did not sympathize with Agrippa' s sentiment, 

29. Paul's reply, for propriety of wording and magnanimity of sen- 
timent, is not excelled in all the records of extemporaneous response: 
(29) 11 And Paul said, I could pray to God, that not only you, but all who 



ACTS XXVI: 30-32. 



281 



hear me this day, were both almost and altogether * such as I am, except 
these bonds." It was not. till he came to express a good wish for his 
hearers and his jailers, a wish for that blessedness which he himself 
enjoyed, that he seemed to think again of himself, and remember that 
he was in chains. 

30-32. The course of remark and the feeling of the audience had 
now reached that painful crisis in which it was necessary either to 
yield at once to the power of persuasion, or to break up the interview. 
Unfortunately for the audience, and especially for Agrippa, the latter 
alternative was chosen. The heart that beats beneath a royal robe is 
too deeply encased in worldly cares to often or seriously entertain the 
claims of such a religion as that of Jesus. A spurious religion, which 
shifts its demands to suit the rank of its devotees, has been acceptable 
to the great men of the nations, because it helps to soothe an aching 
conscience, and is often useful in controlling the ignorant masses; but 
men of rank and power are seldom willing to become altogether such 
as was the Apostle Paul. They turn away from too close a pressure 
of the truth, as did Paul's royal auditory. (30) "When he had said 
these things, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, ana those 
seated with them; (31) and when they had gone aside, they conversed ivith 
one another, saying, This man has done nothing worthy of death or of 
bonds. (32) And Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been set 
at liberty, if he had not appealed to C^sar." The decision that he had 
done nothing worthy of death or of bonds was the judgment of the 
whole company, while Agrippa went further, and said that he ought, 
by right, to be set at liberty. If Festus had decided thus honestly be- 
fore Paul made his appeal, he would have been released; but as the 
appeal had now been made, to Caesar he must go. Whether Festus 
now knew any better than before what to write to Caesar, Luke leaves 
to the imagination of the reader. 

XXVII: 1, 2. Not long after the interview with Agrippa, Paul saw 
an immediate prospect of departing upon his long-purposed voyage to 
Rome. The answer to his prayers was about to be realized, and the 
promise made him by night in the prison of Claudius Lysias, that he 
should yet testify of Jesus in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem, was 
about to be fulfilled. This was being accomplished, not by any direct 
divine interference, but by a providential combination of circum- 
stances. The machinations of the Jews, the corruption of Felix, the 
indecision of Festus, the prudence of Paul, and the Roman statute 

* The majority of recent critics condemn the rendering of ev oiiyw in Agrippa's remark, 
and Paul's response, by almost, and of i» w-o^x&i by altogether ; and render the two thus : 
"In a little time you persuade me to become a Christian." "I could pray to God, that 
both in a little and in much time, you were such as I am," etc., (Hackett.) They under- 
stand Agrippa as speaking ironically, and twitting Paul for supposing him to be an easy 
convert. It must be admitted that the usage of these two Greek phrases is favorable to this 
rendering ; but Bloomfield shows that they do not necessarily require it. On the other 
hand, the rendering proposed involves Paul's reply in an inconsistency of phraseology: 
for how could Agrippa become such as he both in a little time and in much time? If, 
to avoid this difficulty, we render, with Conybeare, (Life and Ep. in loco,) "whether soon 
or late," we force the conjunction x*» into a sense which is not authorized. It must be 
admitted that there are philological difficulties in both the common version of the passage, 
and all that are proposed as substitutes, and it is not easy to decide in which the diffi- 
culties are the greatest. But 1 think the connection of thought and of circumstances are 
clearly such aa I have represented above, and this determines mo in favor of the common 
Yersion. 

24 



282 



ACTS XXVII : 1-6. 



in behalf of citizens, had all most strangely, yet most naturally, com- 
bined to fulfill a promise of God made in answer to prayer. (1) "And 
when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul 
and certain other prisoners to a centurion of the A ugustan cohort, named 
Julius. (2) And embarking on a ship of Adramyttium, we put to sea, in- 
tending to sail to places along the coast of Asia, Aristarchus, a Macedo- 
nian of Thessalonica, being with us." Here, again, we find the significant 
il we" of Luke, showing that he was again in Paul's company. The 
last time we met with this term was upon the arrival of the apostolic 
company in Jerusalem.* He had probably not been far from Paul 
during the two years of imprisonment in Csesarea, and was now per- 
mitted to accompany him to Eome. Aristarchus was also a voluntary 
companion of the prisoner, as w.e infer from the manner in which his 
name is mentioned. There were, however, other prisoners on board, j 
As the ship belonged to Adramyttium, which is on the coast of 
Mysia, it was now homeward bound, and was not expected to take the 
prisoners further than its own destination. But as they were about to 
touch at several "places along the coast of Asia," they could calcu- 
late upon falling in with some vessel bound for Eome. 

3. The apostolic company are now fairly launched upon their voy- 
age, the details of which constitute a peculiar and most interesting 
passage in sacred history. (3) " And the next day we. landed at Sidon: 
and Julius, treating Paul humanely , permitted him to go to the friends, and, 
partake of their kindness." Here we learn that Paul found friends, who 
were, doubtless, brethren, in the city of Sidon. Thus we find that 
both the Phenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, to whose wickedness the 
Savior once so significantly alluded, had,, ere now, received the gospel. 
With the brethren in the former place Paul had spent a week on his 
voyage to Jerusalem, and now the beginning of another voyage, not 
much less mournful, is cheered by the hospitality of those in the 
latter. 

4. u And having put to sea from that place, ive sailed under the lee of 
Cyprus, because the winds were contrary." As the proper course of 
the ship was westward, the contrary wind must have come from that 
quarter. With a favorable wind she would have passed to the south 
of Cyprus; but in tacking to make headway against a contrary wind, 
they necessarily passed to the east and north-east of that island, leav- 
ing it on the left. An additional reason for taking this tack may 
have been a desii-e to take advantage of a current which flows west- 
ward along the southern shore of Asia Minor, as far as the Archipel- 
ago, and greatly favors the progress of westward-bound vessels.^ 

5. 6. Passing around the north-east point of Cyprus, the vessel en- 
tered the open sea to the south of Cilicia and Pamphylia. (5) "And 
when we had sailed across the sea along Cilicia and Pa7nphylia, we came 
to Myra, a city of Lycia. (6) There the centurion found a ship of Alex- 
andria, sailing for Italy, and put us on board of it." Thus, according to 
expectation, they fell in with a vessel bound for Italy, and left the 

* Acts xxi : 17, 18. t Verse 42 - 

% For the nautical information connected with this voyage not found in the text, I am 

indebted to Mr. Howson's most exhaustive chapter on the subject, Life and Ep., vol. 2, 

chap, xxiii. 



ACTS XXVII: 7-12. 



283 



ship of Adramyttium. Their new vessel was one of the many grain 
ships which supplied Rome with bread from the granaries of Egypt* 
She was a vessel of good size, accommodating, on this voyage, two 
hundred and seventy-six passengers, j She had, probably, undertaken 
to sail direct from Alexandria to Rome; but the same contrary winds 
which had thus far retarded the progress of the other vessel had com- 
pelled her to sail far to the northward of the direct route. 

7-8. The wind was still contrary when they left Myra. (7) "And 
having sailed slowly many days, we reached Cnidus with difficulty, the 
wind not favoring us, and sailed under the lee of Crete, over against Sal- 
mone ; (8) and coasting along it with difficulty, we came into a place called 
Fair Havens, near which was the city of Lasea." From Myra to the 
island of Cnidus is only one hundred and thirty miles; hence it must 
have been slow sailing to be "many days" reaching that place. From 
that island their course to Cape Salmone, which was the most eastern 
point of the island* 1 of Crete, was a little to the west of south. The 
wind, to turn them this much out of their course, could have been but 
little, if any, north of west. The lee of Crete, under which they sailed, 
was the southern shore, which but partially protected them from the 
wind, rendering it difficult to keep near the shore until they reached 
the harbor called Fair Havens. This was about half way the length 
of the island. 

9-12. The voyage, thus far, had been so tedious that winter was ap- 
proaching, and it was deemed unsafe to attempt to complete it before 
spring. It became a question, however, whether they would spend the 
winter where they were, or seek a more desirable winter haven. (9) 
" Much time having now elapsed, and, navigation being already unsafe, 
because the fast had already passed, Paul admonished them, (10) saying, 
Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with violence and much loss, not 
only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives. (11) But the centu- 
rion believed the master and the owner of the ship rather than the things 
which were spoken by Paul. (12) And the harbor being inconvenient to 
winter in, the majority advised to depart thence, so as, if possible, to reach 
Pharnix, and spend the winter there, a harbor of Crete looking to the 
south-west and north-west." Paul's advice to the mariners was the be- 
ginning of an activity in behalf of the ship and crew which forms the 
chief matter of interest in the remainder of the voyage. We will yet 
see how nearly his prediction was fulfilled. He did not claim for it 
the authority of inspiration, and, therefore, we should not claim it for 
him; but he had some experience at sea, and expressed the result of 
his own judgment. It was quite natural, however, that the centurion, 
who seems to have had control of the matter, should put more confi- 
dence in the judgment of the owner and the master than in his. He 
had not yet learned to appreciate his prisoner as he did subsequently. 

The description given of the harbor of Pharnix has occasioned some 
perplexity to commentators. As the wind was blowing from north of 
west, a harbor "looking to the north-west and south-west," from, the 
shore, would be entirely exposed to the weather; whereas this descrip- 
tion is given to show that it was a safe harbor in which to spend the 
winter. Mr. Howson is undoubtedly right in assuming that Luke 



* Verao 38. 



f Verse 37. 



284 



ACTS XXVII: 13-23. 



supposes the beholder to be looking from the water, where a vessel 
would lie at anchor, toward the inclosing shore, and means that to 
him the harbor would look to the north-west and the south-west. Such 
a harbor would be safe against any wind in the quadrant from south- 
west to north-west, and was precisely such as was needed at that time. 

13. The harbor called Fair Havens lay on the east side of Cape 
Matala, which they would have to round in order to reach Phoenix; 
but it could not be rounded in the face of a north-west wind, hence 
they had to wait for the wind to change. (13) u Now when the south wind 
blew moderately, thinking they had gained their purpose, they weighed 
anchor y and sailed close by the shore of Crete." They felt that all was 
secure, and even had their boat swinging astern, as they tacked slowly 
along the smooth sea under a gentle southern breeze. It was a deceit- 
ful lull, the prelude to unexpected disasters. 

14-17. (14) " But not long after, a tempestuous wind l called Euroclydon, 
struck against her, (15) and the ship being seized by it, and unable to face 
the wind, we gave up and were driven by it. (16) And running under the 
lee of an island called Clauda, with difficulty we were able to secure the 
boat. (17) When they had taken it up, they used helps, undergirding the 
ship. And fearing lest they should fall into the iSyrtis* they lowered 
the sail, and so were driven." It was just as they were rounding Cape 
Matala, and expected to be borne by the southern wind directly to 
Phoenix, that they were whirled away by this tempest. The direction 
from Crete to Clauda is south-west; the wind, therefore, must have been 
from the north-east. This is indicated by the name Euroclydon, which 
Blooinfleld translates 11 the wave-stirring easter." Such a wind, varying 
from north-east to south-east, is said still to prevail in those seas. 

While passing under the lee of Clauda, the island checked the vio- 
lence of the storm, and enabled them to take some precautions which 
were impossible in the open sea. The first of these was to " secure 
the boat," which had thus far drifted astern, and was likely to be 
dashed in pieces. The second was to undergird the ship, a process 
called frapping in modern style, which consists in passing heavy cables 
under the hull, and fastening them securely on the deck, to prevent 
the timbers from parting under the force of the waves. The third 
precaution was to lower the sails, so as to prevent the vessel being 
driven too rapidly before the wind. 

18-20. (18) u And being exceedingly tempest-tossed, the next day we 
lightened the vessel, (1.9) and on the third day, with our own hands we 
cast out the tackling of the ship. (20) And as neither the sun nor the 
stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest lay on us, at last all 
hope that we should be saved was taken away." The sailors now began 
to realize the truth of Paul's prediction about the character of the 
voyage, and they were prepared to listen to him with more respect 
when he addressed to them the following speech: 

21-26. (21) "Now, after long abstinence, Paul stood in the midst of 
them, and said, Sirs, you should have hearkened to me, and not have 
sailed from Crete, and gained this harm and loss. (22) And now, I ex- 
hort you to be of good cheer ; for there loill be no loss of life among you, 
except of the ship. (23) For there stood by me this night an angel of 
<'An extensive saud-bauk to the north of Africa, still known as the Syrtis. 



ACTS XXVII: 24-32. 



285 



God, whose I am and whom I serve, (24) saying, Fear not, Paul; you must 
be brought before Caesar : and behold, God has given you all those who 
are sailing with you. (25) Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer ; for I be- 
lieve God, that it will be even as it was told me. (26) But we must fall 
upon a certain island. 1 ' Paul's former prediction was already fulfilled 
in part, and they all believed that it was about to be in full. His 
reference to it was designed both to rebuke them for not heeding it, 
and to remind them of its correctness. His present prediction con- 
flicted with the former in reference to loss of life; but their lives had 
been so completely despaired of, that they were not disposed to find 
fault with the former prediction, even in this particular. The present, 
however, was certainly spoken upon divine authority; and if we sup- 
pose the former to have been also, then the security of all their lives 
may be regarded as a boon granted to Paul in answer to prayers offered 
subsequent to the first prediction. That their safety was in some 
sense owing to him, is evident from the words, "God has given to you 
all those who are sailing with you." 

27-29. Notwithstanding the assurance of final safety, their danger, 
for a time, became more imminent. (27) u And when the fourteenth 
night was come, as we were driven along in the Adriatic Sea, about mid- 
night the sailors supposed that they were drawing near to some land ; (28) 
and having sounded, they found it twenty fathoms. And going a little 
further, they sounded again, and found it fifteen fathoms. (29) Then 
fearing lest they should fall upon breakers, they cast four anchors out of 
the stern, and wished for day. 1 ' From this time till day-break, the ship 
lay with her bow to the shore, where the waves were dashing fearfully 
over hidden rocks; and was held back from inevitable destruction 
only by the four anchors cast astern. It was a period of fearful sus- 
pense, rendered hideous by the darkness of the night and the raging 
of the storm. They "wished for day," but they knew not whether it 
would bring relief, or only render them more certain of destruction. 

30-32. Under circumstances like these, both the nobler and the 
baser traits of human character have fair opportunity to exhibit 
themselves. The strong and skillful have often been known to save 
themselves without concern for the more helpless ; while, at times, the 
utmost magnanimity has been displayed by the few. Both traits of 
character were exhibited here; one by the sailors, the other by Paul. 
(30) u Now the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and letting 
down the boat into the sea, under pretense of casting anchors out from the 
bow ; (31) when Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, Unless these 
remain in the ship you can not be saved. (32) Then the soldiers cut off 
the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off." Here we see that while the 
sailors, who alone could have any hope of steering the vessel safe to 
land, were selfishly leaving the passengers to their fate, and the sol- 
diers were so paralyzed with fear as not to discover their design, Paul 
was perfectly self-possessed, and was watching for the safety of all. 
He had an assurance from God that no lives would be lost, yet he 
was just as watchful as though no such promise had been given; and 
lie assured the soldiers that they would not be saved if the sailors 
were permitted to leave the vessel. We have here a happy illustra- 
tion of the manner in which God's decrees and human free agency 



2S6 



ACTS XXVII: 33-38. 



harmonize to produce a given result. It was a decree of God that the 

passengers and crew should be saved, and it was certain to be accom- 
plished; but the voluntary watchfulness of Paul, and the desire of self- 
preservation on the part of the soldiers, were contingencies on which 
the result depended, and which contributed to it, In determining, 
therefore, that a thing shall be done, or declaring that it will be done, 
God anticipates the voluntary action of parties concerned, and only in- 
terferes, by miracles, where such action would fail of the contemplated 
result. In the matter of salvation, we should act as Paul did in this 
case : be as watchful and laborious as though God had promised us 
no assistance, yet as confident of divine assistance as though all were 
dependent on it alone. 

33-36. In a time of extreme danger like the present, a man who is 
able to maintain complete self-possession has great control over those 
who are alarmed. Paul had already displayed his coolness and watch- 
fulness to the soldiers, and had outgeneraled the sailors; consequently 
he became at once the leading spirit in the whole ship's company. 
During the entire inactivity of the crew, while swinging at anchor and 
waiting for daylight, he endeavored to impart his own calmness to them 
all. (33) u Now while day was coming on, Paid besought them all to take 
some food; saying, This is the fourteenth day that you have been waiting, 
and continued fasting , having taken nothing. (34) Wherefore, I beseech 
you to take some food ; for this is for your preservation ; for not a hair 
shall fall from the head of any of you. (35) And when he had thus 
spoken, he took a loaf and returned thanks to God before all, and broke 
it, and began to eat. (36) Then all were of good cheer, and they also 
took some food.^ Here, again, the apostle assures them that no harm 
shall befall them, yet in the same breath urges them to eat heartily, as 
a precaution for their safety. Their safety, though certain, was still 
dependent upon their exertions, and, in order that they might have 
strength for the labor before them, it was necessary that they should 
break their long and exhausting fast. The remark that they had 
taken no food for fourteen days must be interpreted in the light of 
the circumstances. It is not a remark of Luke addressed to his read- 
ers, but one of Paul, addressed to his hearers. If they had taken any 
food at all during the time, which they certainly did, unless they were 
sustained by a miracle, they could but understand him as merely ex- 
pressing, in strong terms, their severe abstinence. Such was undoubt- 
edly his meaning. If Luke had been describing the fact in his own 
words instead of Paul's, perhaps he would have stated it to us with 
some qualifications. 

The cheerfulness of Paul, as he gave thanks to God, broke the loaf, 
-and began to eat, inspired them all with new courage. As their excite- 
ment subsided, their appetites returned; and a hearty meal, which gen- 
erally smooths a rough temper, and acts as a sedative upon all mental 
excitement, completed the restoration of general cheerfulness, and pre- 
pared them to undertake, with alacrity, the. work yet to be done. 

37-38. The gathering of the whole ship's company to partake of this 
meal seems to have suggested to the historian to mention, here, the 
number of persons on board. (37) " Now all the souls in the ship were 
two hundred and seventy-six. (38) And when they had eaten enough, they 



ACTS XXVII: 39-44; XXVIII: 1,2. 



287 



lightened the ship, casting the wheat into the sea." This was all done 
between the time of eating and daylight, and was no inconsiderable 
labor. It was designed to lessen the draught of the vessel, so that when 
run ashore she might float into the shallow water. 

39-41. All was now done that could be, until daylight should reveal 
the nature of the shore ahead. (39) "And when it was day they did 
not recognize the land. But they discovered a certain inlet having a sandy 
shore, into which they determined, if it were p>ossible, to thrust the ship. 
(40) And having cut away the anchors, they abandoned them to the sea; 
at the same time loosing the rudder-bands, and hoisting the foresail to the 
wind, they held toward the shore. (41) And falling into a place betv>een 
two seas, they ran the ship aground; and the bow sticking fast, remained 
immovable ; but the stern was broken by the violence of the waves." At 
every point, except the one to which the vessel was steered, the shore 
was rocky ; for this point was selected because it had a sandy shore. 
It required some seamanship to land where they did. While lying at 
anchor, the rudders, which were merely paddle-rudders, one at each 
side of the stern, had been lashed up, to prevent them from fouling 
with the four anchor-cables also astern. These were loosed to guide 
the vessel ; and the foresail was unfurled to give the vessel the impetus 
necessary to a successful use of the rudders. By a skillful use of both 
she was steered clear of the rocks, and stranded on the sandy beach. 
Here " two seas met; " that is, the waves from two different points met 
each other, and spent their combined force upon the stern of the ves- 
sel, and she was rapidly going to pieces. - 

42. At this critical juncture there was exhibited by the soldiers an 
instance of depravity even greater than that of the sailors the night 
before. They owed their present prospect of safety to the watchful- 
ness of Paul, yet they felt no apparent gratitude to him, and while 
hoping to escape themselves, they were regardless of the lives of him- 
self and the other prisoners. (42) "Now the purpose of the soldiers 
was, that they would kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim out 
and escape." Such is the depravity of human nature, when void of 
religious truth, and trained to the cruelties of war. 

43, 44. But God had a purpose and a promise to fulfill, which did 
not admit of such a disposition of the prisoners, and the more culti- 
vated nature of the centurion was the means of saving them. The 
incidents of the voyage had made an impression upon his mind most 
favorable to Paul, and lie would not ignore the gratitude which he 
owed him. (43) "But the centurion, determined to save Paul, kept them 
from their purpose, and commanded those who could swim to cast them- 
selves out and go first to land; (44) and the remainder, some on boards, 
and some on fragments of the ship. And thus it came to pass that all 
escaped safe to land" Paul's last prediction was literally fulfilled, and 
his fellow-prisoners owed their lives to the centurion's partiality for 
him. 

XXVIII: 1, 2. (1) "And after they had escaped, they knew that the 
island was called Melita. (2) Now the barbarians showed us no little phi- 
lanthropy : for they kindled a fire, on account of the rain that was falling, 
and. on account of the cold, and brought us all to it."- In calling the 
islanders barbarians, Luke adopts the style of the Greeks, by whom 



288 



ACTS XXVIII : 3-9. 



all nations were styled barbarians except themselves. The term had 
not the same sense of reproach which it bears now ; yet those to whom 
it was applied were regarded as comparatively uncivilized. Their 
kindness to the shipwrecked strangers was true philanthropy, being 
prompted by the simple fact that they were men in distress. It was 
a most timely relief to the drenched and chilled and exhausted voy- 
agers. 

3-6. "While they were endeavoring to make themselves comfortable 
around the fire, an incident occurred which had an important bearing 
upon the future welfare of the travelers. (3) u Now Paul, having gath- 
ered a bundle of sticks? and laid them on the fire,, a viper came out from 
the heat, and fastened on his hand. (4) And when the barbarians saw 
the beast hanging from his hand, they said one to another, No doubt tJiis 
man is a murderer ; whom, though he has escaped from the sea, Justice 
permits not to live. (5) Then he shook off the beast into the fire, and 
suffered no harm. (6) But they were waiting for him to swell up,- or 
suddenly fall down dead. And when they had waited a great while, and 
saw that no harm came to him, they turned about, and said that he was a 
god." This scene is like that at Lystra reversed. There the people 
first took Paul for a god, and afterward stoned him. Here they first 
suppose him to be a murderer, and then a god. Their bad opinion of 
him had not been based upon the mere fact that he was bitten by a 
serpent, for they knew that innocent men were liable to the same mis- 
fortune, but by the occurrence of this incident in so close connection 
with his safe escape from an almost hopeless shipwreck. The fact 
that he was a prisoner helped them to the conclusion that he had 
committed murder, and was now receiving a just retribution in a vio- 
lent death. They attributed his punishment to the goddess of justice, 
using the Greek term AIkv, the name of that goddess. When, after 
watching a long time, they found that the bite, so fatal to other men, 
had no effect on him, their heathen education led them irresistibly to 
the conclusion that he was a god. 

It is almost universally conceded that the island here called Melita 
is the modern Malta, which lies directly south of Sicily. The evidence 
for this conclusion is fully summed up by Mr. Howson, to whom the 
inquisitive reader is referred.* 

7. The admiration awakened by this event among the rude popu- 
lace finally led to a more comfortable entertainment of the ship's 
company. (7) 11 In the regions around that place were the estates of the 
chief man of the island, Publius by name, who received us and entertained 
us courteously three days." This "chief man" is supposed to have been 
the Roman governor of the island. It was an instance of distinguished 
hospitality, to entertain for three days, with food and lodging, two 
hundred and seventy-six strangers. 

8-10. But no man ever loses by such hospitality, especially if it be 
extended to a servant of God. Publius was not without a reward for 
his kindness. (8) u A?id it came to pass that the father of Publius lay 
afflicted with fever and dysentery ; to whom Paul went in. and having 
prayed, laid his hands upon him, and healed him. (9) When this ivas 
done, others also in the island who had diseases came and were healed. 
* Life and Ep., vol. 2, pp. 341-346. 



ACTS XXVIII: 10-14 



289 



(10) And they honored us highly, and when we were departing, loaded 
us with such things as we needed." The voyagers had lost every thing 
in the shipwreck, yet, through the services of Paul, they had lacked 
nothing during their stay on the island, and were now about to leave 
it with all the necessaries for the remainder of the voyage, supplied 
free of cost. At the beginning of the voyage Paul was one of the 
most unobserved of all the passengers; but he had gradually become 
the chief dependence of the whole company, and had acquired an as- 
cendency over every mind. Much of this was due to his inspiration ; 
yet native force of character and superior talent, place them where 
you will, will elevate their possessor to distinction and authority. 
Especially will this be true in times of danger and difficulty. 

We can not suppose that Paul healed diseases so generally among 
the islanders, without mentioning the name of Jesus. On the con- 
trary, though Luke makes no mention of it, we can not doubt that, 
from the palace of the governor to the remotest hamlet of the island, 
the name and power of J esus were fully proclaimed during the three 
months of the apostle's stay. 

11-14. (11) "Now after three months we set sail in a ship of Alex- 
andria, which had wintered in the island, whose emblem was Castor and 
Pollux. (12) And landing at Syracuse, we remained there three days. 

(13) Thence, taking an indirect course, we arrived at Rhegium. And 
after one day, a south wind sprang up, and we went the next day to Puteoli. 

(14) Finding brethren there, we were entreated, to remain with them seven 
days ; and so we went to Rome." Castor and Pollux were represented, 
in Greek mythology, as sons of Jupiter, and the patron deities of 
sailors. Their images, carved or painted on the prow, served the pur- 
pose of distinguishing this vessel, as do the names painted upon ships 
and steamboats at the present day. The ship would now be called 
the Castor and Pollux. 

Syracuse, the famous capital of Sicily, where they remained three 
days, was directly in their route, and the delay was probably for the 
purposes of trade. From this place to Rhegium they were again trou- 
bled with unfavorable winds, as is evident from their sailing by an 
"indirect course," and the mention of a south wind springing up the 
second day after they reached this port. The south wind was directly 
in their course, and they sailed rapidly before it to Puteoli, accomplish- 
ing a distance of one hundred and eighty miles* on the next day after 
they started. 

It was, doubtless, an unexpected pleasure to Paul to find brethren 
in Puteoli, and equally unexpected to them to have the great apostle 
to the Gentiles in their midst. The request that he should remain with 
them seven days indicates a desire to have him present at their Lord's- 
day meeting. It is suggestive of a season of religious intercourse, term- 
inated by the day on which the disciples came together to break the 
loaf. The ship had reached her final port; for Puteoli, situated on the 
northern side of the Bay of Naples, was the chief landing-place for ves- 
sels engaged in the trade between Pome and Egypt. f The remainder 
of the journey was to be performed on foot, and there was nothing to 
prevent Paul's delay with the brethren, except the will of the centu- 

* Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 349. t Lifo and E P> vol. 2, p. 350-353. 

25 



290 



ACTS XXVIII: 15, 16. 



rion, who was under too great obligations to him to refuse any reason- 
able request. 

15. The delay of seven days was long enough for news to reach the 
brethren in Rome, that Paul was in Puteoli on his way to their city. 

(15) 11 And the brethren, having heard from that place concerning us, came 
out to meet us as far as Appii Forum and Three Taverns. When Paul 
saw them he thanked God and took courage." The two places here men- 
tioned were about ten miles apart,* and it was doubtless two different 
companies who met them, having left Rome at different times. One 
party had come about forty miles, to Appii Forum, and the other about 
thirty, to the places called Tres Tabernae, or Three Taverns.f Such 
a mark of respect extended to him in his bonds was highly gratifying, 
and no wonder that he " thanked God and took courage." 

16. Finally, the gates of "the eternal city," as it was proudly styled, 
were entered. The prisoners were at the end of their long journey, 
and soon learned the disposition to be made of them for the time being. 

(16) 11 And when we came into Home, the centurion delivered the prisoners 
to the Praetorian Prefect ; but Paul was permitted to dwell by himself, with 
the soldier who guarded him." The Prsetorian Prefect was commander 
of the imperial guards, and had custody of all persons to be tried be- 
fore the emperor.J It was probably the influence of Julius, the cen- 
turion, in his favor, which obtained for Paul the distinguished privilege 
of living in his own rented house, with only a single guard. 

Paul had now accomplished a journey which he had contemplated 
for many years, and had met with some of the brethren whom he had 
called upon two years and a half ago, to strive together with him in 
prayer to God that he might come to them with joy, by the will of 
God, and with them be refreshed. || God had twice promised him that 
he should visit Rome,§ and now, the promise was fulfilled, and his 
prayers were answered. But how different his entrance into the im- 
perial city from what he had fondly hoped ! Instead of coming in a 
free man, to appear in the synagogue, and in the forum, for the name 
of Jesus, he is marched in between files of soldiers, reported to the 
authorities as a prisoner sent up for trial, and kept night and day 
under a military guard. How poor his prospect for evangelizing the 
vast population! If Paul the tent-maker, a penniless stranger, had 
commenced his labors in the commercial emporium of Greece, u in 
weakness, and in fear and in much trembling," how shall Paul the 
prisoner, with all the suspicion of crime which attaches to such a sit- 
uation, begin the work of salvation in the capital of the whole world ? 
The prospect was sufficiently disheartening; but he had one consola- 
tion which he did not enjoy in Corinth. He was not a stranger here; 
but was well known to all the brethren, who had heard his Epistle to 
the Romans read in the Lord's-day meetings, and who were eager to 
form his personal acquaintance. He had already thanked God and 
taken courage, when some of them had met him on the way, and now 
he was emboldened, by their sympathy, to send forth even from his 
prison-walls a voice of warning to the vast multitudes around him. 

17-20. He made no delay in beginning his work; and his first ap- 

* Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 360. f Hackett. t ^i* 6 and E P-> vol. 2 > P- 36 *- 

H Bom. xv : 30-32, g Acta xxiii • 11 ; xxvii : 24. 



ACTS XXVIII: 17-24. 



291 



peal, according to his uniform custom, was addressed to lus own kins- 
men according to the flesh. (17) "And it came to pass, after three days, 
that he called together the chief men of the Jews ; and when they had come 
together, he said to them, Brethren, I have done nothing against the people, 
or the customs of the fathers ; yet I was delivered a prisoner from Jeru- 
salem into the hands of the Romans ; (18) who, having examined me, were 
disposed to release me, because there was no cause of death in me. (19) 
But the Jews opposing it, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar; not that 
I had any thing of which to accuse my nation. (20) For this cause I have 
requested to see you and speak to you. For it is on account of the hope of 
Israel that I am bound with this chain." The propriety of this inter- 
view, and of the individual statements in the speech, is quite obvious. 
It might have been supposed, from the fact that he was accused by the 
Jews, that he had been guilty of some crime ; and from his appeal to 
Cassar, that he intended to prefer charges against his accusers. The 
fact that the Romans would have released him but for the opposition 
of the Jews, was much in his favor on the first point; and on the lat- 
ter, his own disavowal was sufficient. His closing remark, that it was 
for the hope of Israel that he was bound with a chain, was well calcu- 
lated to enlist their sympathies; for it was no uncommon thing for 
Jews to be persecuted. 

21, 22. The response of the Jews was candid and becoming. (21) 
"And they said to him, We have neither received letters from Judea con- 
cerning you, nor has any of the brethren who have come reported or spoken 
any evil concerning you. (22) But we think it proper to hear from you. 
what you think ; though concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is 
everywhere spoken against." It is rather surprising that they had heard 
nothing of the exciting scenes of Paul's life in the last two years; but 
it often thus happens that events pass almost unnoticed by a living 
generation, which are destined, in subsequent ages, to figure as the 
leading events of history. By hearing nothing, however, they had heard 
nothing prejudicial to him, except that the sect of which he was an 
advocate had a bad reputation. If they had acted on the principle 
which often governs predominant religious parties, this would have 
been sufficient to turn away their ears. Doubtless, they had acted 
somewhat on this principle toward the preachers of the gospel who 
had preceded Paul in Rome; but the direct personal appeal which he 
made to them, and the conciliatory manner and matter of his address, 
induced them to think proper to hear what he thought. In these 
words, they gave good expression to an important rule of conduct ; for, 
however a party who attempts to show us the truth may be spoken 
against, it is always proper to hear them before pronouncing sentence 
against them. 

23, 24. Before the Jews took leave of Paul, they made arrangements 
for a formal and deliberate hearing of what he thought. (23) "And 
having appointed him a day, there came to him into his lodging a greater 
number, to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuad- 
ing them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and the prophets, 
from morning till evening. (24) Some believed the things which were 
spoken, and some believed not: Sufficient time was occupied to place 



292 



ACTS XXVIII : 25-28. 



the whole subject before them, and to support each separate proposi- 
tion with suitable evidence. The result was such a division of senti- 
ment as almost uniformly attended the preaching of the gospel. 

25-28. From what follows, we have reason to suppose that the un- 
believing party gave some unbecoming expression to their sentiments. 
(25) "And disagreeing among themselves, they dispersed, Paul saying one 
word: Well did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah the prophet to our 
fathers, (26) saying, Go to this people and say, With hearing you will 
hear and will not understand, and seeing, you will see and not perceive; 
(27) for the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull 
of hearing, and their eyes they have closed ; lest they should see with their 
eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should 
turn, and I should heal them. (28) Be it known to you, therefore, that 
the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and. they will hear it." The 
purpose of henceforth turning to the Gentiles, implied in the last re- 
mark, indicates that far the larger portion of his hearers rejected the 
gospel. 

The quotation from Isaiah furnishes the true explanation of the 
failure of the gospel to effect the salvation of all who hear it fully 
proclaimed. The theory that the human soul must be regenerated by 
an immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, or that the Spirit must im- 
part a special force to the Word in individual cases, before the gospel 
can be received, is an attempt to explain this matter; but it is not con- 
sistent with the explanation here given by Paul. Upon those theories, 
when a part of Paul's hearers went away unbelievers, the reason was 
that they had not enjoyed a divine influence which was granted to the 
others. On Paul's theory, however, the Lord had done as much for 
the one party as for the other; and the reason why one party were not 
believers was because, unlike the others, their ears were dull of hear- 
ing, and their eyes were closed. Neither was this condition superin- 
duced without their own volition ; for they are expressly charged with 
closing their own eyes. As they closed them voluntarily, they could have 
kept them open. Had they done so, it is implied that the process 
would have been reversed. They would have seen the truth; seeing 
it to be truth, they would have given it a respectful hearing ; hearing, 
they would have understood it, and would have turned to the Lord that 
they might be healed. This was precisely the experience of the party 
who believed. They had themselves once been gross of heart and dull 
of hearing, and had closed their eyes against the truth as presented by 
previous preachers in Rome; but now they opened their eyes to what 
Paul presented, and the consequence was, they turned to the Lord. 
We conclude, therefore, that the power of the gospel is sufficient for 
the conversion of all who will see and hear. For this reason, it is sent 
to all in the same words; all who hear enjoy the same divine influ- 
ence, and those only are lost who willfully refuse to hear the truth, or 
obstinately resist it. In this arrangement there is no respect of persons 
with God, nor can any man attribute his final ruin to a withholding of 
saving influences on the part of the Holy Spirit. 

29. Notwithstanding the principal part of Paul's visitors went away 
unbelievers, they could not at once cast the subject off from their at- 



ACTS XXVIII: 29-31. 



293 



tention. Luke follows them, as they went away, with this remark: 
(29) 11 And when he said these things, the Jews departed, having much 
disputation among themselves." 

30, 31. The narrative is now brought abruptly to a close, by the fol- 
lowing statement : (30) 11 Now Paul remained in his own hired house two 
whole years, and received all who came in to him, (31) preaching the king- 
dom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Ohrist 
with all freedom of speech, no one forbidding." Here, again, Luke ob- 
serves the distinction between preaching and teaching. Originating in 
the apostolic commission, which was the starting point of Acts, it has 
been preserved throughout the narrative, and now appears at its close. 

The liberty granted Paul, of living in a rented house with the soldier 
who guarded him, enabled him to pursue these labors to the utmost 
advantage possible for one in military confinement. The brethren 
needed no invitation to visit him and hear his teaching ; while their 
influence, actively exerted, was sufficient to bring in a large number of 
persons to hear his preaching. 

The results of these efforts Luke does not see fit to enumerate ; 
nor does he gratify the natural curiosity of the reader by continuing 
to its final close the biography of Paul. He leaves him at the end 
of two years' imprisonment, without even informing us whether he 
was then released. True, the remark that he "remained in his own 
hired house two whole years, and received those who came to him," 
seems to imply a change after that time; but it might have been 
a change to closer confinement, so far as is indicated by this re- 
mark. 

It is probable that the narrative was brought to a close here, partly 
because the composition of it was concluded just at this time. The 
two years of comparative inactivity which Luke enjoyed while a 
companion of the prisoner Paul afforded a good opportunity for writ- 
ing it, and it is quite certain that the last paragraph was not written 
till the close of this period. 

But, independent of this consideration, the leading purpose of the 
narrative itself rendered this a most fitting point at which to bring it 
to a close. Having started out to show the manner in which the 
apostles and evangelists executed their commission, he had now led 
his readers from Jerusalem through Judea, Samaria, the provinces 
of Asia Minor, the islands of the Mediterranean, Macedonia, and 
Achaia, to the imperial city of Rome ; and leaving the principal 
laborer here, still engaged in "preaching the kingdom of God, and 
teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ," his purpose is 
accomplished, and the narrative closes. 

A commentary on Acts, strictly confined to the subject-matter of 
the text, would here be brought to a close. But as it has been a part 
of our purpose to give somewhat more fullness to the biography of 
Paul, by introducing information derived from other inspired sources, 
we have yet a few paragraphs to pen. Fortunately, the intense 
curiosity awakened by the closing chapters in reference to the further 
career of the apostle may, in some degree, be gratified. This curiosity 
directs itself chiefly to two questions suggested by the later portion 
of the history : first, what were the results to the cause of his long- 



294 



ACTS XXVIII: 30, 31. 



wished-for visit to Rome ? second, what was the result of his appeal to 

Caesar ? 

In reference to the first question, we have already remarked, that 
his entrance into Rome was far different from what he had fondly- 
hoped, and he could not reasonably expect to accomplish much while 
confined with a chain, and resting under the suspicion of being 
deservedly in confinement. But we have already seen that he con- 
tinued to preach and teach for two years, and we learn something of 
the extent and success of his labors from epistles which he wrote 
during this period. Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were the 
earliest of these epistles, being written at one time, and forwarded, the 
former two by Tychicus,* and the last by Onesimus,f the two mes- 
sengers traveling together. In the two former there are indications 
of great anxiety in reference to the success of his efforts, and intima- 
tions of serious obstacles in the way. He exhorts the brethren to 
pray for him, that a door of utterance might be opened to him, and 
that he might have boldness to speak the gospel as it ought to be 
spoken. J This request shows that there were some obstructions to 
the proclamation of the truth, and that they were such as were cal- 
culated to check the boldness of his utterance. 

Notwithstanding these obstructions, the last of the three letters 
above named reveals some success which had already rewarded his 
labors. Out of the very dregs of the dissolute and corrupt society of 
the metropolis, a Greek || slave, who had run away from his master, 
a convert of Paul's in Asia Minor,§ had, by some means, been induced 
to visit the apostle and hear the gospel. It proved the power of God 
to free him from a bondage far worse than that from which he had 
fled. After he became a disciple, Paul found him profitable to him 
for the ministry;^" being of service, no doubt, in bringing within the 
sound of the gospel many of his former companions. For this reason 
he had a strong desire to retain him as an assistant; but having no 
right to do so without the consent of Philemon, his master, and being 
unwilling to enjoin by authority upon the latter the obvious duty of 
liberating a slave capable of so great usefulness, he sent him home to 
his master, with an epistle, in which he delicately intimates his wishes 
in the premises, but leaves the whole subject to his own sense of pro- 
priety.** Sending him home without the means to recompense his 
master for any thing of which he had defrauded him, Paul promises 
to pay the sum, if any, out of his own purse. f f Thus his preaching 
had begun to take effect upon the most hopeless class of the city 
population, at a time when he was urging distant congregations to 
pray that God would open to him a door of utterance. 

But, eventually, in answer to these prayers, a door of utterance was 
thrown open far wider than he had reason to expect. In the Epistle 
to the Philippians, written at a later period, when he was expecting his 
trial and release, he says: "I wish you to understand, brethren, that 
the things which have happened to me have fallen out rather to the 
furtherance of the gospel, so that my bonds in Christ are made manifest 



* Ep. vi : 21 ; Col. iv : 7-9. 
| So his namo indicates. 
** Phil. 8-16. 



+ Phil. 10-12. 
\ Phil. 19. 
tt Phil. 18, 19. 



t Ep. vi : 18, 19 ; Col. iv : 2-4 

Phil. 11-13. 
XX Phil, i : 19-27. 



ACTS XXVIII: 30, 31. 



295 



in all the palace, and in all other places, and many brethren in the 
Lord, growing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak 
the word without fear."* From his prison, the Lord had opened a 
door of utterance into the imperial palace itself; so that Paul the 
prisoner had an audience whose ears would have been wholly inaccess- 
ible to Paul the unfettered apostle. His discourse before the emperor, 
if we may judge by that before Agrippa, must have awakened new 
thoughts and emotions in the Eoman court; and what awakened new 
interest there could not be long in spreading to "all other places." 
The Lord had led him by a strange method to Rome, and surrounded 
him with many discouragements; but his purpose was now unfolded, 
and Paul saw in the result, as it affected both the disciples and the 
community at large, a wisdom which before had been inscrutable. 
He had now demonstrated what he had once written to the Romans, 
that he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, and was ready to 
preach it even in Rome ; for he had preached it to both the proudest 
and the poorest of the population, and that with a chain upon his arm. 

No two years of Paul's life were better filled with earnest labor than 
these two spent in his Roman prison. Besides the oral efforts just 
referred to, and the epistles to Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and 
Philippians, he is supposed, also, near the close of this period, to have 
written Hebrews, the most profound, next to Romans, of all his pro- 
ductions. He was not alone in his toil and danger, but was constantly 
surrounded by some of those noble brethren who were so ardently at- 
tached to his person. Timothy joins with him in the opening salu- 
tation of Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. Aristarchus and 
Epaphras were his fellow-prisoners ;f Mark, who once forsook him and 
Barnabas, and went not with them to the work, was now with him; J 
Demas, who afterward forsook him, " having loved this present 
world," || was as yet by his side;§ and Luke, the beloved physician, 
who shared the perils of his voyage from Cassarea, continued to re- 
lieve the dreariness of his imprisonment,^ and indited the last para- 
graph of Acts, as we conjecture, just as the two years expired. 

The question as to the result of Paul's appeal to Caesar is not 
settled by direct scriptural evidence, yet it is determined, to the satisfac- 
tion of nearly all the commentators, that he was released at the end 
of the two years mentioned by Luke. The evidence on which this 
conclusion is based consists partly in the unanimous testimony of the 
earliest Christian writers after the apostles, and partly in the difficulty 
of fixing a date for the epistles to Timothy and Titus without this 
supposition. There are events mentioned in these epistles, for which 
no place can be found in the preceding history; such as his leaving 
Timothy in Ephesus, to counteract the influence of false teachers, 
while he went into Macedonia;** his leaving Titus in Crete, to set in 
order the things that were wanting there, and to ordain elders ;ff his 
visit to Miletus, when he left Trophimus there sick ;Xt and to Nicopolis, 
where he spent the winter. |||| The argument drawn from both these 
sources is very fully and satisfactorily stated by Mr. Howson, to 
whom the more inquisitive reader is referred. 



* Phil, i : 12-U. f Col. iv : 10 ; Phil. 23. 
V Col. iv: 14. i Col. iv: 14. 
tl 2 Tim. iv : 20. Titus iii : 12. 



t Col. iv : 10. J 2 Tim. iv : 10. 

** 1 Tim. i : 3. ft 'J-'itus i : 5. 

H Vol. 2, chap, xxvii. 



296 



ACTS XXVIII : 30, 31. 



On the supposition of his release, the subsequent known facts are best 
arranged as follows: He first fulfilled the purpose so confidently ex- 
pressed to the Philippians of visiting them again ;* and next took 
advantage of the lodging which he had directed Philemon to prepare 
for him at Colosse.-f While in Asia, he would scarcely pass by the 
city of Ephesus; but it is after a short visit to Spain, that we locate 
that visit, at the conclusion of which he left Timothy there and went 
into Macedonia.^ It was contrary to the expectation once entertained 
by Paul, that he was once more greeted by the brethren in Ephesus; 
for he had bidden them farewell four years ago with the conviction 
that they would see his face no more.|| Leaving Timothy in Ephe- 
sus, and going to Macedonia, he wrote back to him the First Epistle 
to Timothy, § in which he expressed a hope of rejoining him soon at 
Ephesus.f This he most likely did, as he soon after visited Crete, in 
company with Titus ; and the most usual route from Macedonia to 
this island was by way of Ephesus. Having made a short visit in 
Crete, he left Titus there, to a set in order the things which were 
wanting, and ordain elders in every city." ** Shortly after leaving 
the island, he wrote the Epistle to Titus. He was then on his way 
to Nicopolis, a city of Epirus, where he expected to spend the winter. ff 
On the way he had passed through Miletus, where he left Trophi- 
mus sick; and Corinth, where he left Erastus.jJ Whether he spent 
the whole winter in Nicopolis, or was imprisoned again before spring, is 
not certainly known ; but the next that we know of him, he was a pris- 
oner in Rome the second time, as is indicated in his Second Epistle to 
Timothy. From this epistle we learn several interesting particulars 
of his last imprisonment, and of the beginning of his final trial. His 
situation was more alarming, and he was attended by fewer friends 
than before. Demas forsook him, through love of this world, and 
went to Thessalonica; Crescens, for some reason unexplained, went to 
Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. || || Tychicus he had sent to Ephesus.§§ 
Luke, alone, of all his former fellow-laborers, was with him, though 
he was expecting Timothy to soon rejoin him, and bring Mark with 

IfeLff 

At the time of writing, he had passed through the first stage of his 
trial, and was awaiting the second. The want of human sympathy 
which he had felt in his prison was realized still more intensely dur- 
ing his trial. He sa} T s: "At my first answer, no man stood with me, but 
all forsook me. I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge."*** 
Even Luke, who dared to visit him in his prison, and remain with him 
when others fled, shrunk from the fearful position of standing by his 
side in the presence of Nero. But the venerable man of God, though 
deserted in his most trying hour by human friends, was able to say, 
M Notwithstanding, the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, that 
by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles 
might hear; and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion."jft 
Thus again had he fearlessly and fully vindicated his preaching in 
the presence of the imperial court, and passed, a second time, through 

* Phil, ii : 24. f 22. % Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 447. | Acts xx : 25. 

g 1 Tim. i : 3. 1 Tim. iii i 14. ** Titus i : 5. ft Titus iii : 12. 

XX 2 Tim. iv : 20. |||| 2 Tim. iv : 10. g§ 2 Tim. iv : 12. flfl 2 Tim. iv : 11. 

*** 2 Tim. iv : 16. ftt 2 Tim - »» '• W 



ACTS XXVIII: 30, 31. 



297 



the fiery ordeal, without personal injury. The declaration that he 
was delivered out of the mouth of the lion is an allusion to the case 
of Daniel, of which his own reminded him. 

But there was another stage of his trial yet before him, and from 
this he had reason to anticipate the most fatal results. From all the 
indications in view, he was induced to write to Timothy, " I am now 
ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand."* He 
had some years before declared, "I hold not my life dear to myself, so 
that I may finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have 
received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the favor of God." 
Now, he was about to yield up his life, and upon looking back over 
the course he had run, and the ministry with which he had been 
intrusted, the conditions specified were completely fulfilled. With 
all confidence he is able to say, "I have fought a good fight, I have 
finished my course, I have kept the faith." f All who have fol- 
lowed his course with us in these pages can bear testimony to this 
declaration, and, after glancing back with him over the long series 
of stripes, imprisonment, and exhausting toil through which he had 
passed, can enter into the feeling of relief and joy with which he 
looked forward and exclaimed, " Henceforth there is laid up for me a 
crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give 
to me at that day; and not to me only, but to all them also who love 
his appearing."^ Like a mariner on a long voyage, whose bark had 
been tossed by many waves, and shrouded in the gloom of many a 
storm, his soul was cheered, at last, by a view of the desired haven close 
at hand. He is still, however, beaten by the storm, and one more 
dark billow is yet to roll over him, ere he rests upon the calm waters 
within the haven. Here the curtain of inspired history closes over 
him, and the last sound we hear is his own shout of triumph as he 
braces himself for the last struggle. It only remains for the earliest 
uninspired history of the Church to confirm his own anticipations, 
by testifying that his trial finally resulted in a sentence of death, and 
that he was beheaded outside the gates of Eome, in the last year of 
the reign of Nero, A. D. 68. || We bid him adieu till the resurrec- 
tion morning, well pleased that the course of the narrative on which 
we have commented has been so directed as to keep us for so long a 
time in his company. 

* 2 Tim. iv : 6. f 2 Tim. iv : 7. J 2 Tim. iv : 8. | Life and Ep., vol. 2, p. 487. 



THE END. 









4 V °^ ' 0 " 0 ' £ V 










4 O 

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. | 
^> * ° - ° Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

Treatment Date: June 2005 








»i PreservationTechnologies t°« 

W ° RLD LEADER IN p APER PRESERVATION 

, C> vP^ ° ijy m Thomson Park Dnve r * 



Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



